Mike S. Adams is a murderer, and he admits to it June 5, 2007Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, constiutional issues, Morality, reproductive rights, wingnuts.
Mike S. Adams, venomous hate-bag and all around unpleasant person, has decided to call all feminists murderers. (PZ links to him: you can find the link there if you must.) I will get into the rest of his “argument”–if a collection of lies, anecdotes and fallacies can truly be so called–below the fold. First, though, I will demonstrate that by his own logic he is personally responsible for the death of more than 3,000 American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Given that a) feminists who defend abortion invariably fall back on the “right to control her body” argument and, b) this argument is invariably motivated by nothing more than lust, the following re-definition of feminism is in order:
Feminism is a minority social movement, whose members murder innocent children in order to obtain sexual gratification.
Those who would quibble with my assertion that all feminists commit murder do so based on the mistaken assumption that a woman must have or actually perform an abortion to commit a murder. That isn’t so.
Charles Manson never actually stabbed or shot any of the five people at the Tate residence. Nor did he stab either of the LaBiancas the following evening. His conviction on all seven counts of murder was due to his choice to enter into a criminal conspiracy with the very people who did, in fact, directly commit the murders.
Whether they have ever had or performed an abortion themselves, all feminists today are voluntarily involved in a movement whose principal issue/goal is abortion on demand. And this meeting of the minds renders the term “baby killer” equal applicable to both the committed and casual feminist alike.
Now, the only possible reason Adams can be arguing this is to offer a not-so-subtle endorsement of violence against any “feminist.” After all, of what other possible use could this rhetoric be? Allow me to demonstrate precisely how offensive this rhetoric is:
Mike S. Adams and his buddies at town hall are voluntarily involved in a social movement–neoconservatism–that has worked for more than a decade to get us into a war with Iraq, which lied to get us into that war, and which is keeping us in that disastrous war in order to fulfill its own lust for power and oil. Adams, by supporting Bush’s deceitful and disastrous politics, is by his own standard responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
What, do you think that by labeling every contemporary conservative a murderer, a killer of our troops and of Iraqi babies, I’m being extreme? Then don’t tell me about it–tell that fuckwad Mike S. Adams.
And of course, this is me being generous, because no feminist goes around trying to kill babies: protecting a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices is not even remotely analogous to tricking this nation into a war. Adams is, unlike the feminists he so despises, actively supporting a policy which results daily in the killing of innocents. And he does so while branding as murderers those who would protect individual rights.
That said, let’s get to the rest of his “argument”:
His entire evidence that feminists are baby-killers rests not on any real data or argument, but on two anecdotes (I know! A conservative that doesn’t use evidence! Shocking!!!1!) in which he claims that a) a biologist believed in “Darwinism” so he could keep sleeping around and b) feminists want to murder babies because they like sex.
Seriously, those two points, along a Manson analogy, are the entirety of his argument.
My understanding of (and disrespect for) the underpinnings of modern feminism was actually fostered by a biologist who once made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support of Darwinism. When asked about the lack of evidence supporting Darwinism – the fossil record, etc. – he confessed there was a very human reason for his faith in evolutionary theory despite the lack of scientific evidence. He confessed that if Darwinism were not true, he wouldn’t be able to sleep around.
At the heart of his support for Darwinism was a desire to get God out of the picture by any means whatsoever.
Only a true neocon could make an argument completely lacking in any real evidence or argumentation, and then claim that science as well supported as the Theory of Gravity or as Relativity is about a desire to have sex. I have news for you, Adams: Christians sleep around too. Go ask Ted Haggard.
I wonder whether some untenured psychologist would dare to publish a paper called “A Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Human Devolution.” I think we all know the answer to that question.
The answer is that no serious psychologist would feel the need to claim that science is anything but science. Now, a study on how one can claim scientists are deluded while writing tripe like this–there would be a fucking case study in Cognitive Dissonance.
Without addressing the issue of when life actually begins she pleaded for the preservation of a woman’s right to choose by reminding people that a woman who gets pregnant “might not know” or “might not even like” the man who got her pregnant.
I can basically guarantee he has made this up. Why? Because no defender of reproductive choice would ever claim that a woman’s right to her own body should have anything to do with whether she’s in love with the fetus’ father. Maybe Adams is so bigoted that he really believes that only single sluts get abortions. Maybe he’s just a dishonest scumbag. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive, you know.
The similarities between the remarks of the freely fornicating biologist and the slut-sympathizer-slash-sociologist are analytically indistinguishable.
No, they’re not.
And the remarks of the latter are a grim reminder that the feminist mantra that a “woman has right to control her body” is not a reference to the fetus at all. It is simply a reference to her own body…
So far so good. This debate isn’t about abortion, per se, it’s about not letting men like Adams take control over women’s bodies. But it doesn’t last, of course.
…and her desire to share it with those she “might not know” and “might not even like.”
Like the man who gets shot down in a bar, Adams resorts to abandoning any pretext of reason and shouting “slut” at the top of his lungs. He’ll go on–as we see above–to claim that feminists really only want to fuck, and so are in favor of killing babies.
Naturally, almost exactly the opposite is true–it is his ilk, those who wish to punish sex, those who can imagine no reality but that in which single women who sleep with any man but them pay hundreds of dollars for abortions to they can sate their animal lust–it is men like Adams who stand in the way of effective education and birth control and who believe, as is so clearly illustrated here, that women must be punished for sex by forced childbirth.
Adams has been kind enough to give us a crystal-clear insight into the anti-choicer’s psyche: for him it is about punishing sluts, using violence-endorsing rhetoric against said sluts, and generally proving that he’s stronger than those women turned him down when he was in highschool/college/last week.