Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston





Friday, May 15, 2009


I have a troll who comes to my blog and obsesses over a woman's right to decide what she wants to do with her body. Abortion is legal. But Beth can't accept this fact. She visits my blog regularly; and no matter what the subject is, she introduces abortion into the discussion.

But here's the insanity. She posts her comments, then, perhaps, has second thoughts about her foolish and insane diatribes, comes back, and deletes them. Coward.

She is apparently unaware that I have copies of every post she leaves here. I'm putting this up for all to see; and perhaps, she will finally cease and desist, once she realizes that her comments do not disappear. I will continue to post them, even as she scrubs them, until she stops coming here. [I will also post some of them in the comment section here, where she cannot delete them.]

Beth has left a new comment on your post "MICHELLE OBAMA MAKES TOP 100 LIST FOR MAXIM MAGAZI...":

Does anyone really care what list Michelle Obama made or didn't make? Does anyone really care at all what kind of shoes she is going to wear today? There are so many more important things to worry about. Like the outrage of Obama speaking at Notra dame!

It is an outrage and a scandal that Notra Dame University, one of the countries premier But I'm afraid that the truth is lost on the liberal Obamatrons, even those who think that they are Christians don't get it. universities in the United States, would bestow such an honor on Obama given his clear support for policies and laws that directly contradict fundamental Catholic teachings on life and marriage, and the sanctuary of life.

As a parallel, should Hitler have spoken at Jewish University? He advocated death to the Jews as well as other races and religions. Obama agreed to lift the ban of stem cell research and to fund abortions in other countries with taxpayer money.

No, Obama shouldn't give the commencement address at Notre Dame, nor should he be given an honorary degree. This Catholic university has always been held in high esteem and the offer to speak should never have been extended.

No, Please America lets stand up for something! Abortion and Stem Cell research on fetus's is wrong! And Shaw thinks Limbaugh is guilty of treason? She need look no further than the Oval Office for treasonous activity. Neither one of them up held their Oath of Office to uphold the constitution and as a result we have a socialist usurper sitting in the White House. If she needs to bring up the issue of treason she should start there.

And when will Shaw do a blog on Pelosi? Pelosi is a liar. She knew more than just water-boarding techniques and how/when/where the U.S. was using it via CIA or others. I'll wager she also knew perfectly well what the Rendition Program was all about since used by the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s. Pelosi is as treasonous as Obama is!

But I'm afraid that the truth is lost on the liberal Obamatrons, even those who think that they are Christians don't get it. And they never will. All this writer can think about is her brainwashed mush of Michelle Obama, who is another piece of crap in the eyes of the anyone who understands anything about Catholic teachings!!

The liberals are showing what their agenda truly is a blanket of lies and socialism. Wh cares what Michelle Obama is wearing to the next party? Who really cares about what kind of dog their kids want?We should be caring about Notre Dame and are they REALLY a Catholic university? How strongly committed to church doctrine is it? So what if Obama supported legislation to strengthen abortion RIGHTS?

He voted against legislation that would make it a crime to knowingly kill an unborn child, but so what? He offers HOPE and is the soon-to-be savior of our nation. Notre Dame has sold its soul to have a abortion rights Leftist believe its commencement address because he's cool, hip

The Catholic Church is clear in its rejection of abortion. No pro-abortion person, should speak at the commencement! This is an absolute disgrace! Obama is an absolute disgrace!


Shaw Kenawe said...


Beth wrote the following comments on my blog, and then she deleted them. She probably isn't aware that I can keep her original posts:

Beth has left a new comment on your post "MICHELLE OBAMA MAKES TOP 100 LIST FOR MAXIM MAGAZI...":

dmarks doesn't it bother you that Shaw finds it so important to blog about such trivial things like Michelle Obama's polls and what she wears when her husband the president allows the killing of fetuses!!!

What in the hell is wrong with you people on this blog? ... wWhy make such a big deal out of such superficial/ trivial subjects?
Shaw never blogs about ANYTHING of real importance. Obama Supports Killing Babies, and all Shaw can blog about is that Michell made the list of the top 100 hottest babes!
Do I find it humorous? No I find it ridicules!

More from Beth:

Beth has left a new comment on your post "MICHELLE OBAMA MAKES TOP 100 LIST FOR MAXIM MAGAZI...":

Is this blog is dedicated to the Coronation of Michelle Obama? Michelle Obama and her husband President Smirky, continues to show everybody that HE WON! He will do what he likes. I'm sure Michelle is proud of his Country now. She is sitting on the throne.
Everyone there should stand up and turn there backs to him when he speaks.Now that would send a message.

Messiah Obama and his Queen Michell continue to kill innocent babies while they eat Lobsters and caviar and drink champagne.

Shaw Kenawe said...

And this:

Beth has left a new comment on your post "MICHELLE OBAMA MAKES TOP 100 LIST FOR MAXIM MAGAZI...":

dmarks, I fail to see the point of your argument. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life (you don't get more innocent than a baby). How else is someone supposed to "go about it"? Since pro-lifers obviously believe that this is equivalent to killing your disabled child because they are difficult to care for, what do you expect them to do?
And I do, equate Obama with Hitler when he thinks nothing about the murder of the innocent!!
Open your mind to at least see the pro-lifers have a duty to defend what they see as murder.

Throwing unsubstantiated accusations against those who disagree with you has no place in civilized conversation and no relevance to whether or not pro-lifers should be upset about a man who supports 9 month abortions receiving an honorary degree from an educational establishment founded and supported by their religion.

Any rational person can see that for a pro-lifer this is a travesty. It is condoning wholesale slaughter of babies.

What do you expect?
BTW, Notre Dame can be spelled several ways..

Arthurstone said...

A cry for help.

Don't answer.

Anonymous said...

All kidding aside, she needs help.
(and spell check)

alison said...

Women are always their own worst enemies on this issue. Invasion of the babyists!

dmarks said...

Abortion is about the child's body (which makes it controversial). I know many women who are opposed to abortion and they are not "their worst enemies", and they can argue in an articulate and insightful fashion. Beth is just not one of them. Just a comment on the first lines of your post.

But Beth does act so trollish.

The "BTW, Notre Dame can be spelled several ways.." is so bizarre.

dmarks said...

"Michelle Obama and her husband President Smirky, continues to show everybody that HE WON!"

Not only does Beth recycle the "he's not really President" line that Bush haters used in the past 8 years, she has recycled the "smirky" accusation.

This accusation was widely used against Bush.

Shaw Kenawe said...

To be morally consistent, everyone who objects to abortion because it kills innocent lives must also be anti-war--in all circumstances, including the right to defend one's country, since war destroys blastocysts, zygotes, embryos, fetuses, and children.

Every single person who believed invading Iraq was a moral thing to do and who is rabidly opposed to abortion has to come to terms with the fact that they are moral cowards.

To be morally consistent you can't be against abortion under all circumstances, but approve of wars in some circumstances.

Anonymous said...

beth and others who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade ought to do some reading on their moral inconsistency:

Most disturbing in the lack of parity between the bishops' passionate war on abortion and their lukewarm response to the war in the Gulf is this incontrovertible fact: invoking the just war theory involves accepting the destruction of the lives of human persons to achieve a greater good. In the case of abortion, where the Catholic church has no formal position on the personhood of the fetus, no weighing of the good to be achieved against the tragedy of abortion is permitted.

Let's look at how the just war theory could be applied to the case of abortion. Both constructs would recognize that the taking of life in war and in abortion (though not equivalent acts) are never in themselves moral goods. But these values are not absolute. They can be overridden in serious circumstances and after reflection on the moral guidelines established by the church.

For example, the just war theory accepts the taking of human life if one's life or that of another is directly threatened. A just abortion theory would therefore permit a woman whose life was in danger to have an abortion—an act now prohibited by church law. Just war theory has also accepted that war can be warranted to protect a nation's integrity, particularly if the violation of a nation would result in the erosion of values judged to be equal to or greater than life itself. This could include territorial violation that would result in loss of liberty or traditional freedoms such as religion and speech. Could not a just abortion theory admit that threats to a woman's physical and emotional health are a violation of bodily integrity comparable to national integrity? Could not a woman's capacity to care for existing children and children to come, her ability to function as a fully contributing member of our society and her sense of self-identity and purpose be seen as values proportional to the potential value of fetal life?

Other guiding criteria on which an act of war is justified include the competence and intent of the leader making the ultimate decision. Is not a pregnant woman a competent moral agent? What is immoral in the goal of a woman who, in order to achieve a good greater than bringing one new life into the world, chooses abortion under difficult circumstances?

"Seamless garment" proponents claim that appropriate application of the just war theory depends on the avoidance of civilian casualties. One can kill or seek to kill only other combatants. The fetus, they point out, is innocent. As we have seen, even in high-tech modern warfare, innocents will be killed. One cannot help but wonder why the bishops so readily give presidents and generals wide latitude in decisions that take many lives, while on the home front they seek to prohibit absolutely a woman's ability to make an individual decision.

The bishops apply an inconsistent ethical paradigm to the issues of war and abortion. It is possible (and it is time) for Catholic thinkers to fashion a just abortion doctrine, one that respects the sacredness of human life, the worth of women's lives and the capacity of women to make moral decisions.
Read the rest here..

Patrick M said...

This Beth has been bugging me with similar diatribes as well.

It was crap like this (and the result of bringing the subject she obsesses over up in any post) that made me ban any talk about abortion period.

If I can get a better location (she's in the NYC area) would you go down and slap some sense into her (and send me a video clip)?

Christopher said...

Give me her IP address, Shaw.

I can tell where she's located and the ISP. I have tracking software.

Just email me.


Beth posts under at least two different monikers, plus as "anonymous." When I catch her I copy and paste it and put it on another post for safekeeping.

In reality though, I appreciate the comments. I get enough hits and unique visitors at TSR, 50 to 150 a day, to keep me from thinking I'm just stroking myself. But there's something about generating loads of comments that's good for the ego. Shaw and Patrick do that well.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Jealous am I. Why? Because I don't have a troll to call my own. Not that I am unable to keep one. I would if I could but my colleagues at the Zone won't let me.

There was a time when I had a few trolls. I used to let my cats play with them. The birds in my garden would eat them. But no longer ... my colleagues just delete them.

libhom said...

The troll's comments conflating abortion with the Holocaust are truly offensive. They are also ironic, given the fact that Hilter was rabidly anti choice.

dmarks said...

According to this page:

Hitler favored abortion.

But the whole site looks "out there", and it lacks citations from German/Nazi/historic documents, so I am certainly not taking it as conclusive. (Nor am I equating/comparing Hitler to anyone: am avoiding Godwin's law just as Libhom did).

alison said...

I get that dmarks and know such women myself but I maintain that view because any woman who obsesses to that level and presumably wants to overturn your Roe law is most definitely her own worst enemy. And which women frequently are (the Islamic morality police martialling women in Iran are all women). You can maintain a pro life position without meddling in taking freedoms from women. It is a bizarre situation for America to have politicised abortion and control in the fashion it has. Abortion should be legal and remain a personal moral choice. I cannot see why that position wouldn't suit all your pro lifers. But hey ho.

Anonymous said...

If you don't like abortion, don't have one. No one is forced to have an abortion; no one should be forced to carry a pregnancy that is unwanted or dangerous.

dmarks said...

There are some of us who disagree with the above two comments, and don't favor abortion. But not all of us on that side are trolls.

Anonymous said...

religions don't agree on when a blastocyst becomes a viable fetus and it is religion that believes that a fertilized ovum has a "soul." anit-abortionists are driven mostly by religious beliefs.

the morning after pill would take the controversy out of abortion but the anti-abortion people are agains that too.

its about religious beliefs and the desire to control women's bodies.

dmarks said...

"religions don't agree on when a blastocyst becomes a viable fetus"

This whole development matter is part of cut-and-dried biological science. I can't think of any religious arguments about "when a blastocyst becomes a viable fetus". For one thing, there are intermediate developmental steps.

"its about religious beliefs and the desire to control women's bodies."

As to the first, yes there are many religious groups who favor abortion.

As for the second, no. Let's cut through the misleading terms. It is all about one specific action: abortion.

Anonymous said...

i read somewhere on this blog that to be morally consistent, if someone is against abortions for any and all reasons as the catholic church is and many religious fundamentalists are, then any and all wars have to be immoral since innocent fetuses and embryos are killed. no exceptions for just wars. the catholic church does not allow any exceptions for abortions.

but this controversy is not about moral consistency, it's about controlling women, their bodies, their sexuality--and making them pay a price for being sexually independent.

dmarks said...

Anon: It has nothing to do with controlling women and sexuality. It is about abortion.