stop-knife-crime murder

I Love Murder: A response to RH Reality Check

Thanks to an alert Facebook friend, I happened across a post at RH Reality Check titled “I Love Abortion: Implying Otherwise Accomplishes Nothing for Women’s Rights.” This viewpoint, considering that the article was shared to Facebook nearly 8,000 times, is apparently not altogether rare. I applaud writer Jessica DelBalzo for her honesty. I decided to make a few changes to the article in order to illustrate how truly disgusting it is.

I love murder. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to murder funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every person is able to safely, legally kill other people. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for the freedom to kill. I love murder.

And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catchphrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these – “Make murder safe, legal, and rare!” – has been used for decades as a call for murder rights.

Safe and legal are concepts I fully support, but rare is something I cannot abide. I understand the theoretical mindset: it is better for a killer to prevent an unwanted murder than to bear the physical and financial burden of killing. While my own murder involved very little pain and a minimal financial expense – one which my ex-boyfriend was willing to share with me – even I can admit that ending conflicts without killing – divorce, blackmail, a verbal warning – is preferable to weeks of planning and anxiety. A sound beating is a valuable tool.

However, there is no need to suggest that murder be rare. To say so implies a value judgement, promoting the idea that murder is somehow distasteful or immoral and should be avoided. Even with affordable, accessible non-violent alternatives, there will be user errors, resolves that break, moments of spontaneity. The best intentions in the world won’t change the fact that we are merely human and imperfect in our routines. The best intentions in the world also won’t change the fact that some people need to kill, while others find that even people we don’t really want to kill need to be terminated for the murderer’s well-being or to avoid letting someone live with painful or unmanageable disabilities. Killers who find themselves facing any of these situations shouldn’t feel guilty for failing to keep the numbers low.

It stands to reason that if we ensure that non-violence is both readily available and easily affordable for active murderers of all ages, the need for murder may decrease as a result. That would be a laudable accomplishment and an indication of social progress for an America otherwise plagued by anti-murder religious conservatism, which is known for shaming killers’ natural tendencies.

Nevertheless, even in the face of such (hypothetical) strides, we must remember that extenuating circumstances like getting really angry, people who suck, and killing frenzies mean that murder will always be a normal, necessary, and reasonable choice for many people. As such, we must avoid stigmatizing it in any way. No murderer benefits from even the vaguest insinuation that murder is an immoral or objectionable option. That’s the weak argument made by murderer-hating, forced-life advocates, and it has no place in a dialogue about the freedom to kill. Terminating a life is not an unethical act, yet suggesting that murder should be rare implies that there is something undesirable about committing one.

Similarly, I’ve heard murderers’ rights activists claim that “no one likes murder,” in an attempt to find common ground with anti-killers. While it may be true that no one likes the physical act of killing (any more than she may like her yearly mammogram, life-saving chemotherapy, or temporarily uncomfortable dental surgery), a great many people like killing itself. They like knowing that an unwanted life does not have to yield unwanted results. They like knowing that their mental and physical health take precedence over a human who isn’t they. They like knowing that they own their bodies, and someone else’s. Many medical procedures are physically unpleasant, but that doesn’t lessen how grateful we are to have them available when we need them.

Suggesting that murder be “safe, legal, and rare,” and crowing that “no one likes murder,” accomplishes nothing for murderers’ rights. Pandering to the anti-choice movement by implying that we all find termination distasteful only fuels the fire against it. What good is common ground if it must be achieved at the expense of people who have committed or will commit murders? Those people need advocates like us more than we need support from anti-murderers. Rather than trying to cozy up to the forced-life camp, people who value their freedom should be proud to say that they like murder. In fact, they should venerate it wholeheartedly. Murder is our last refuge, the one final, definitive instrument that secures our bodily autonomy. What’s not to love?

  • Juila

    Sickening. Great way to show the truth that pro-abortion people like to hide behind words such as “terminate” “pro-choice [to kill babies]” etc.

  • Basset_Hound

    The premise of the original RH article is demeaning to me as a woman. It is disgusting to imply that I don’t deserve the right to be considered “equal” and to participate in society unless I’m willing to demean my role as a mother and to kill my children for my own pleasure.

    Here’s a suggestion for a bumper sticker for an “RH Reality Check” person’s car….

    I’D KILL FOR AN ORGASM…..IN FACT I ALREADY DID….ABORTION ROCKS!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/hannah.mallery Hannah Mallery

    Well, if you’re going to condone it,might as well embrace it. At least she’s not hypocritical, just profoundly evil.

  • Marie

    Trolling articles from March? Nice going.

  • Steve Farrell

    You couldn’t have demonstrated any more clearly the wrong-headedness of pro-life fanaticism. Equating abortion with murder is just a facile way to push the buttons of self-righteous people who already think exactly the way you do. But it ignores all the context that most people recognize in the whole debate over reproductive rights. Are we just talking about the ethics of a surgical procedure? Or does the topic have a lot of economic, cultural, and social factors that pro-lifers seem content to ignore?

    Women have every right to feel insulted by the implication that their rights over their bodies cease at the instant of conception, and that they don’t even deserve the decency of being mentioned in screeds that detail fetal development. The notion that you’re a “feminist” if you advocate forcing women to undergo pregnancy and childbirth, instead of giving them a choice in the matter, is a piece of rhetorical camouflage that only those possessed of the most jaundiced religiosity could deem appropriate.

    By all means, I recommend that you stick to this tired ploy. It’s so easy to tune out such histrionics when Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for decades, that I’m relieved that pro-lifers can’t seem to come up with anything more imaginative or original in their crusade against women’s rights.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      “Are we just talking about the ethics of a surgical procedure?”

      I don’t know how abortion being a surgical procedure somehow means it can’t also be murder, and I’m very curious to find out whether you know, either.

      “Or does the topic have a lot of economic, cultural, and social factors that pro-lifers seem content to ignore?”

      If you’re going to pretend pro-lifers are ignoring various things because that’s the most convenient to reinforcing your version of reality, then no amount of discussion will change your mind. But let me just ask: what sort of “economic, cultural, and social factors” would possibly make it acceptable to kill anyone other than the unborn?

      “the implication that their rights over their bodies cease at the instant of conception”

      Forbidding pregnant women from ONE PARTICULAR ACT because that act KILLS SOMEONE ELSE is not tantamount to ending women’s control “over their bodies.” You guys really aren’t well-served by your movement passing around all these lazy, self-righteous talking points and passing them off as “thought.”

      “that they don’t even deserve the decency of being mentioned in screeds that detail fetal development.”

      Now we don’t discuss women? Again, if you’re just gonna pretend wide swaths of pro-life communication don’t even exist because they run counter to the narrative you wanna build, I suggest you run off and stop wasting the grown-ups’ time.

      “The notion that you’re a ‘feminist’ if you…”

      Hmm, let’s ask the real feminists what they had to say on the matter: http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index.htm

      “can’t seem to come up with anything more imaginative or original”

      At this point, do I really need to point out the irony of this statement?

      • Steve Farrell

        “Hmm, let’s ask the real feminists what they had to say on the matter:”

        It doesn’t surprise me that you consider “real feminists” the people who want to make women have to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will. I can hang a shingle outside my door telling everyone I’m a real airline pilot, too, but that don’t make it so. If you feel the woman has no say in the matter after the instant of conception, then you’re erasing her and ignoring her instead of coming to terms with the complex reality of the situation.

        See, what choice does is empower women, and if people can’t abide that, they’re not in favor of female empowerment. If a society can’t abide that, then that society is oppressive. If you want to define a week-old blastocyst as a “human being” simply because it makes you feel morally justified in limiting a woman’s control over her own body, then you’ve finally achieved escape velocity from the constraints of civil discourse.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          It’s clear, after all the words I’ve wasted on you today, you’re not interested in anything other than venting about your own prejudices and misconceptions. Come back when you’ve grown up a little more.

          • Steve Farrell

            Gee, Calvin, your incivility is bound to change hearts and minds. Good luck winning the war against abortion through smugness and insult.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Your repeated incivility and intentional dishonesty determined what kind of response was warranted. If you’d like to stop getting insults, then I suggest you stop earning them.

        • Ingrid Heimark

          We define a week-old blastocyst a human being because it is, no other reason whatsoever

      • Detroiter327

        I want to make a comic book called Calvin Freiburger: Pro Life Thread Hijacker.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Directly responding to arguments is “hijacking” a thread? Glad to see your descent into trollish irrelevance is moving along on schedule, Detroiter.

      • Sorites Paradox

        “Forbidding pregnant women from ONE PARTICULAR ACT because that act KILLS SOMEONE ELSE is not tantamount to ending women’s control “over their
        bodies.”

        It is when forbidding the act necessarily requires a woman to do something: to gestate and give birth, and bear the physical processes and repercussions that attend those actions. You can’t deny that forbidding abortion requires action on the part of a pregnant woman. It’s not “abortion or no abortion,” its “abortion or gestation and birth.”

        • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

          How about forbidding parents from neglecting their children? That requires them to spend time with them, feed them, clothe them, provide them shelter, etc., forcing them to SPEND MONEY and GIVE UP CONTROL OF THEIR HOME.

          We put parents in jail for not doing those things. Defending a human being’s right to life does not deprive anyone else of any greater right.

          • Sorites Paradox

            We also allow parents to give their children up for adoption, or turn them over to child protective services.

            You’re also equating use of property, time, money, etc to direct, physical use of the body. You haven’t made any argument giving up these things is equivalent to giving up control of one’s body. I can make the counter argument, though. We never, ever ever require parents to provide bodily (blood transfusions, organ donations, etc) to their born children (or to anyone else for that matter). Why? Because your right to bodily integrity is greater than another’s right to use your body to sustain their life. Why then should we require pregnant woman to do so for their fetuses?

            Neglect is also a term that means more than what you think it means. To say that a parent neglected a child implies by necessity that that parent failed to provide something that the parent had a duty to provide. As I just explained, you have not established that parents have a duty to provide bodily resources to a child in the same way that they have a duty to provide shelter, etc. Thus, a woman aborting a fetus is not neglecting anything.

          • Vertebrae8

            A woman should be forced to gestate a child, even if she was raped. Was that so hard to say? Why do I say that? Because I am not an inhuman piece of sh*t. Because I don’t put some bodily fluids and extra weight gain for 10 months on a par with a living breathing growing human life. Because I don’t care about women’s (in particular) rights any more than I care about human (in general, including the unborn) rights. Crazy; I know.

            So, I hope you have a really good rational justification for allowing mothers to terminate gestation because they don’t want to share their bodily fluids. Is your jsutification more thought-out and eloquent than mine? Let’s see it…

          • ProTruth2

            Because I am not an inhuman piece of sh*t.

            Yes. Yes, you are, because perpetuating of an unwanted ‘rape pregnancy’ is perpetuation of the assault, and you seem to be all in favor of that.

            Yes, yes, I know, teh baybee is innocent! But teh baybee is still a foreign object forcibly implanted into the victim, and it is inhuman to expect the law to force the woman to perpetuate the violation just because you like the foreign object, until such a time as it grows up and becomes a woman.

            Because I don’t care about women’s (in particular) rights any more than I care about human (in general, including the unborn) rights. Crazy; I
            know.

            Wrong. You do not care about women’s rights at all. This doesn’t bother me, particularly–I’ve always known that with one exception (Rebecca), people at this site do not care about women; they care only about talking pregnant women into being a surrogate for some Christian family who deserves the baby more than the slut who got pregnant. And since it’s no longer socially acceptable to suggest that rape victims were asking for it, pro-lifers have had to turn the narrative to “rape victims are selfish” rather than “rape victims are sluts.”*

            You see, Vertebrae8, women are–and I know you will find this hard to believe–people. A principle of human rights is that people ought not to be coerced into having their bodies used against their will. There is *zero* difference between forcing a rape victim to carry a pregnancy to term and kidnapping you at gunpoint so that your liver can be harvested and medical research can be performed on you. The liver will grow back, and you can leave after ten months.

            Where does your sacred worship of total perfect unquestionable bodily autonomy come from?

            Most of it probably comes out of the Enlightenment, when they developed ideas about ‘liberty’ in contrast to ‘slavery.’ If you are American, you might want to look at the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolishes involuntary servitude except as a criminal punishment.

            *I realize it’s not fair to say that all of you care only about baby redistribution; some of you also see “babies saved from abortion” as debate trophies. And I’m not complaining that you’re finally showing your true colors: I appreciate the honesty.

          • Sorites Paradox

            Tragically, I think that he actually DOES believe this. It reads like a pretty good impersonation of a Men’s Rights/MGTOW blogger.

            It’s so extreme and messed up that it does read as satire, though.

          • Sorites Paradox

            Edited to add- You could definitely be right about the pantomime. It’ll be interesting to see if we figure out what’s legit. I also concur with you about the simultaneous desire for honesty on the anti-choice side and the desire to see it brought out with integrity.

          • ProTruth2

            Edited to add- You could definitely be right about the pantomime

            I am really leaning in that direction, because calling his posts “cartoonish” is giving them too much dimension. But other than the “rape child” thing, I guess he hasn’t said anything that Ann Coulter hasn’t. Actually, if it weren’t for the “rape thing,” I’d guess that Ann Coulter is slumming.

            Incidentally, Kristen if you want Ann Coulter to read your “open letter” in the other post, try wrapping it around a check.

          • Vertebrae8

            A rape child is not a foreign object. While the sperm may be, the egg, and the womans contribution, make it her own as well as his.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “I’ve always known that with one exception (Rebecca), people at this site
            do not care about women; they care only about talking pregnant women
            into being a surrogate for some Christian family who deserves the baby
            more than the slut who got pregnant. And since it’s no longer socially
            acceptable to suggest that rape victims were asking for it, pro-lifers
            have had to turn the narrative to “rape victims are selfish” rather than
            “rape victims are sluts.”

            Vertebrae’s comments about men dominating women are reprehensible, but the above paragraph is even less defensible. It’s a slanderous lie with no evidence whatsoever, and you know it. You cannot plausibly believe a word of it.

            You’re a fraud, AntiTruth. A complete failure to become anything resembling an honorable human being, reduced to obsessively claiming credit for virtues you don’t even try to live up to.

          • ProTruth2

            Vertebrae’s comments about men dominating women are reprehensible, but the above paragraph is even less defensible.

            Seriously? On a site that purports to be deeply, deeply concerned about the oppression of women, advocating the oppression of women is more acceptable than doubting the sincerity of the site? Hee!

            I’d tell you to never change, but I know you already think you’re perfect just the way you are.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            In addition to being a pathological liar and shameless character assassin, it seems your common sense is so lacking that, instead of defending or walking back your original lie – which is just inches above this comment for all to see and judge for themselves – you tell ANOTHER lie by claiming I’m objecting to something other than WHAT I DIRECTLY QUOTED. Sometimes I wonder how you guys manage to tie your shoes in the morning…..

          • ProTruth2

            you tell ANOTHER lie by claiming I’m objecting to something other than WHAT I DIRECTLY QUOTED.

            Well, to me, “men dominating women” IS oppression of women, but apparently you disagree. My bad. I shall rephrase.

            On a site that purports to be deeply, deeply concerned about the oppression of women, advocating ‘men dominating women’ isn’t as bad as doubting the sincerity of the site? Hee!

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Do you have any comprehension that the words you quote have no relation to what you say after them? At all? Are you just that desperate to avoid owning up to your slander, or are you truly that stupid?

          • ProTruth2

            Are you just that desperate to avoid owning up to your slander, or are you truly that stupid?

            No, I stand by what I said, and for evidence I point to this website. I just think that your spittle-flecked rants are pretty funny.

            Still, it’s not very nice of me to provoke them. In penance, I’m thinking of giving $20 to an abortion fund every time you call someone ‘stupid,’ but I haven’t decided yet. Giving money to PP Action Fund every time a pro-lifer lied about taxpayer dollars going to PP Action Fund added up.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Not half as funny as watching someone stand by bald-faced slander under the screen name “ProTruth,” relying on a “defense” that would get laughed out of any high-school debate team. People like you always make me curious if lying permeates every aspect of your interaction with the world, or if it’s just something you do while hiding behind Internet anonymity.

          • ProTruth2

            relying on a “defense” that would get laughed out of any high-school debate team.

            I will defer to your superior knowledge of high-school debate teams, though I am surprised to hear that calling one’s opponent “stupid” passes muster. Though I suppose you could simply not be holding yourself to that standard.

            These are either the fever dreams of a psychopath (which, by the way, sound far more “spittle-flecked” than anything I’ve said), or the intentional slander of a scumbag.

            Those are your options.

            No, those are your options, because you are apparently incapable of believing that a rational and moral person could find you unconvincing. And though I do tire of bringing this up, you’re not leaving me much choice: “finding Calvin unconvincing” is not a symptom of any medical disorder. Though I’m not a doctor, it’s pretty clear that the actual symptoms we’re looking at are

            Hypersensitivity to insults (real or imagined), criticism, or defeat, possibly reacting with rage, shame, and humiliation

            Arrogant behavior and/or attitude

            That is, your claim that I am either a psychopath or a scumbag suggests that you suffer from (or rather, you cause others to suffer from your) narcissistic personality disorder.

            Seriously, I’m finding this tedious too. If you don’t want me to keep saying that you appear to have NPD, stop giving me so many, many reasons to believe that you do.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            I’m not sure what’s sadder: that you somehow think you can get away with pretending “finding Calvin unconvincing” is what I’m criticizing you for (even though I’ve repeatedly quoted exactly what comments make you a nut or a liar, or that you’re so devoid of basic character that you think dredging up another smear is a suitable way to defend the smears you’re under fire for.

          • Sorites Paradox

            I was going to consider replying to this at length later, after I go to that thing where I work outside the home for a living (gasp, I know, I know, the patriarchy, saints preserve us).

            But then you edited this to show that you understand the answer is bodily autonomy, you just don’t accept it as applied to women. So there’s really not much of a point in engaging with you; I’ll just keep up with worship of deciding who and what uses my body at all times.

          • http://www.facebook.com/john.doey.73700 John Doey

            You are absolutely deplorable. Any person that could possibly force a woman who has already been traumatized due to rape to then carry the consequence of that rape, thereby further humiliating, traumatizing, and dehumanizing her, then give birth to it and rationalize it as God’s will is not only sadistic but insane.

            Second, and get it straight too, not everyone worships, believes in, or cares about your god. GOT IT?

            And yes, you are undoubtedly an inhuman piece of sh*t.

    • Amy

      I would just like to point out that, in 99% of pregnancies, the sex that caused the woman to become pregnant was of her own volition. I’m not saying that you can’t have sex if you’re not trying to concieve (and I certainly think it should be saved for marriage), but that’s beside the point. But this is the big idea: they already made the choice to become pregnant. Can we sit there and say that they had nothing to do with it (they and the irresponsible men who went along with it)?

      As to your comments about how abortion isn’t murder, I submit this to you:

      At conception, a baby (or zygote, if you want it to be fancy) has all of its DNA present and, save for nutrition and time to grow, is unchanged from when it is born. It is, by definition, a human being. Abortion removes that life from its life source, the mother. And do you know what? My old dog, Aisha, was put to sleep in a more humane manner than babies are aborted—poisoned with an injected saline solution, ripped apart limb by limb, skull opened and brain suctioned out. And unborn babies can feel pain. Science backs this up.

      Tell me, if the methods I described above were being used on toddlers and preschool children wouldn’t you call it murder, too?

  • ProTruth2

    I fixed excerpts of one of LiveAction’s recent columns in honor of Ms. Walker Hatten’s new appreciation for “honesty.” Y’all might need some new schtick, because your copy just doesn’t read as well when you tell the truth as pro-lifers see it.

    Live Action’s latest investigative video, “Is it Safe?,” scrutinizes safety at abortion clinics across the country, as well as whether or not Planned Parenthood specifically lies to murderers regarding the dangers of abortion. The video reveals that in 24 months, there were 14 cases of injury at Planned Parenthood clinics, including the death of a killer as the result of a botched abortion at a Planned Parenthood in Chicago, Illinois…

    Murderers and children are suffering. The prime example: murderer Kermit Gosnell was charged with killing one murderer by a botched abortion…How many clinics are just uninspected, unlicensed, moneymaking baby-killing machines with staff that would rather fatten their wallets than protect murderers?

    The bottom line: abortion isn’t safe, and the government must stop treating it like the favorite child with no rules, no regulations, loopholes to existing rules, and special favors. The health and safety of murderers…depend[s] on it.