Follow by Email

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Last Weekend on Twitter...

I spent far more hours than I care to admit on Twitter this past weekend. It all started with a woman who took a position claiming that abortion should be a viable option as long as the foster system was overwhelmed, since making abortion illegal would funnel more children into an already broken system. She also said that legal abortion was the only thing guaranteeing that women could achieve economic independence.

What followed was exactly what you might expect. The abortion culture in the United States was compared – accurately – to the slaughter of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Fetuses were compared – by her - to parasites that shouldn’t be considered “human” until birth.

But then the debate went sideways. When asked when killing a baby should become “wrong,” this girl said “no less than one year after birth.”
“Is that a serious response?” I asked.
“Why wouldn’t it be?”
“Just to clarify,” I said, “Infanticide should be legal up to one year if it provides economic stability to the mother?”
“Yep.” Three letters that brought the Twitterverse (or at least the corner of it in which I reside) to a screeching halt.

 “Yep.” The life of a baby is less important than the mother’s bank account.

“Yep.” Life isn’t *life* so much as it is political capital.

“Yep.” Oh, by the way, a “fetus” isn’t an *actual* baby.

Within minutes, the full weight of the pro life lobby on Twitter descended on her head. Not surprisingly, she quickly tried to play it off as a joke.

“Wow. You guys are too dense and stupid to understand sarcasm?”

Sarcasm is amusing. When it isn’t advocating INFANTICIDE.

“I was just trying to prove how crazy pro-lifers are.”

By telling jokes about KILLING LIVE BABIES.

“OMG you guys are a riot.”

Because people who think KILLING ALL TEH BABIEZ is wrong are about as funny as jokes about rape. Only less so.

The problem with her “sarcasm” in a nutshell: there are people who SERIOUSLY hold that position. Why would anyone assume that she was employing sarcasm when a)the position, though reprehensible, lined up with every other argument she had made up to that point, and b)she not only took the position, but doubled down on it. Twice.

On an unrelated note, her Twitter account was banned later that day…


  1. Isabel lied. She meant every word until she was backed into a corner and could see no way out. She is also a coward for taking such action. The problem is that there are many people who think the same way. Just think of all the things that were illegal only a few years ago that now are accepted as the norm. Virginias point is clear, and I agree with her.

  2. One would then have to ask why Isabel felt backed into a corner. The obvious answer is that her position prior to resorting to sarcasm was difficult to defend. She stated that abortion had to be legal in order for women to have economic independence - but if you boil that down to bare bones, what she said was that it should be legal to take a life for money. If you're willing to accept the idea that a life is less valued than money, when you choose to take that life becomes irrelevant.

  3. That girl did not mean to be sarcastic... she meant EVERY word she said.... claiming sarcasm only came AFTER she was rightly pounded on.

    What would she say to any man who joked to her about rape?