Weird
— Posted by John (October 26, 2006 at 2:09 pm)
As part of our job, Eric and I share the responsibility of replying to e-mails sent to the Pro-Life Action League. We put a pretty high premium on responding to e-mail, and do our best to try to reply to every e-mail we receive, and to do so promptly.
We don’t reply to everything, however.
In the past, I’ve written about some of the hate mail we receive; this we very rarely respond to (for what I’m sure are obvious reasons). Instead, it usually just gets filed right away in the “hate mail” folder.
Other e-mails we don’t usually reply to are the ones that, for lack of a better term, can only be classified as weird. A while back, Eric suggested that I do as he had done: create a folder titled, simpy enough, “Weird”, wherein could be filed away the types of messages that leave you scratching your head, thinking, “I could respond to this, but I don’t have the slightest idea where to begin…”
The latest addition to the “Weird” folder came in yesterday afternoon from a fellow named Skip:
—–Original Message—–
From: Skip [mailto:Skip********@********.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:51 PM
To: Pro-Life Action League
Subject: Getting Involved[Message from Skip]
Pro-Life Action League, The Pro-Life Action League is performing an excellent service by protecting the life of unborn children.
Unborn children need all the rights of protection of life, just as every normal born person also receives those rights. All the rights to life include protection from intentional homicide to unintentional manslaughter, and every born child has those rights so I am happy to see a group so involved in bringing those rights to the unborn.
For example, there are situations when drivers may not be paying attention and kill a young child playing in the street. The right to life means the driver needs to be prosecuted for negligent homicide or manslaughter to keep those who are still living in society safe and punish the driver for negligence. Just as laws against theft do not stop thefts, laws against negligent homicide will not stop negligent homicide; but they will punish the guilty and deter future criminal acts.
Another example: Mary is a 34 year old mother of 2 who has been married 12 years and has a third “unborn” child 5 months way. Her 4 year old in the back seat distracts her for a moment and she rear-ends the car in front of her in little more than a fender bender. The pressure from the seat belt causes Mary to have contractions and she delivers a child too young to be saved by the marvels of modern medicine. Mary is no less a criminal than the driver in the first example and needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. By supporting the same protections you and I enjoy, ALL the rights to life…intentional or unintentional, society is protected from criminals like the example of Mary.
It is time every miscarriage is investigated to determine if the mother’s actions could have in any way contributed to the negligent homicide of the unborn child. Police officers should immediately interview all family members and the potential criminal and when in doubt, mothers should be immediately transferred to a holding facility after any miscarriage.
Thank you for the work the Pro-Life Action League performs by the support and encouragement given to lawmakers so they can overturn Roe vs. Wade and put all these women guilty of negligent homicide through miscarriage in jail, removing the danger to society.
Skip
“I could respond to this, but I don’t have the slightest idea where to begin…”
See what I mean?
This entry is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Rosie says:
Doesn’t he realize that it all comes down to intent (or free will)? Does a woman who has a miscarriage intend to? I doubt it. Does a woman who walks in the clinic to have an abortion intend to kill her baby? Of course. There’s also the difference between an act of God and someone commiting a cruel act against another willingly. I wonder if he’s lost a child, he may just be grieving.
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
mary kay says:
He sounds very young or maybe on the low end of the IQ scale…But I think he wants to say that if a child dies, no matter what age (born or unborn) the people involved should be investigated equally. Without meaning to be hurtful, I honestly think he is mentally challenged and has confused a lot of different issues. But his heart seems to be in the right place…
I say e-mail him back, explain the “intent” thing and commend him on his moral fiber. You don’t have to be a genius to recognize right from wrong…and even if Skip isn’t the brightest star in the heavens, his light is still shining in the right places…maybe he just needs his bulb to be tightened.
MK
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Rosie says:
Do you think he may be being sarcastic?
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Rosie says:
I just reread Skip’s e-mail and I have come to the conclusion that he is a bit wacky. He calls his example “Mary” a criminal when she accidently gets into a car accident, as if she is supposed to be perfect. I think our friend Skip has a bit of a God complex, I wonder if Skip thinks he has ever made a mistake in his life. I don’t think Skip is mentally challenged at all, look at the way he writes. He reminds me of those who say “well if you take away my right to abort my baby, I should be able to take away your right to give birth to yours.” It’s just not logical, it’s vindictive. Skip is missing the point entirely!
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Joe says:
I think that email deserves its own category in your email John. You can name it, “Definitely not worth posting on GFL blog”.
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Mike says:
Has anyone seen this picture?
Tip-toeing to Mary
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/talkin_with_mar.html#comments
Mike
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Christina says:
He’s being a snot. This is the old “If we re-criminalize abortion, the government will investigate every miscarriage” myth that the abortion lobby put out years ago. I’d not even bother to answer him, out of a general “Do not feed the trolls” policy.
However, if you do want to respond, just as a matter of adhering to the principle of responding to all emails, just say something like, “Thank you for taking the time to write” and leave it at that.
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
mary kay says:
Okay,
You guys win…he’s not mentally challenged. He’s a jerk. I reread it and definitely picked up on the sarcasm this time…can anyone say naive?
MK
By the way Mike , Tiptoeing to Mary made my day…thanks!
Comment posted October 27th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Pansy Moss says:
I wouldn’t respond simply due to his lack of use of paragraphs. As a matter of fact if it were me, I would reply “I can’t read this, it’s too annoying to look at”. But I am too snarky for my own good at times.
Comment posted October 27th, 2006 at 6:46 am
lauren says:
HOLD YOUR FIRE!!!
This guy probably isn’t being sarcastic. The miscarriage law was actually proposed by a republican from Virginia awhile back…
take a look
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/6/194434/1328
I’m only using Kos as a reference to the real links which are documented in this diary pretty well…. Sad but true. I can’t imagine having a miscarriage and then having to report it to the police.
Comment posted October 27th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Eric says:
To be fair, this guy did actually use paragraph breaks. For some reason, some e-mail comes to John as a big block of text, but to me with extra lines between paragraph breaks. Go figure.
I added the paragraph breaks that were in the original, and removed John’s apology for the format. More readable now.
Comment posted October 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Pansy Moss says:
I added the paragraph breaks that were in the original, and removed John’s apology for the format. More readable now.
Now I can’t be sarcastic. Pooh! OK, I will go back a reread it.
OK, I reread it. Yes, either the person is sarcastic or really weird. I thought the paragraph issues were a good cover in trying to decipher whioch one
Comment posted October 27th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
mary kay says:
Wow,
I just read what Lauren Linked to and well…Wow. I can’t even get my head around it…If you go all the way to the end it is explained as a way to offset babies being dumped in trashcans. But it sounds a little drastic. On one hand it confirms the humanity of the child but on the other, putting a woman in jail? I don’t know. I need to think about this one for awhile.
What do you guys think?
MK
Comment posted October 27th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Rosie says:
MK,
” Cosgrove’s bill requires any woman who experiences “fetal death” without a doctor’s assistance to report this to the local law-enforcement agency within twelve hours of the miscarriage. Failure to do so is punishable as a Class 1 Misdemeanor.”
That is just the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard. A woman who has a miscarriage is considered a criminal but a woman who has an abortion is an upstanding citizen. A woman who has a miscarriage is treated like dirt because she chose not to abort her child. I’m sure though that a woman who is in her first tri-mester doesn’t have an obligation to tell anyone that she is pregnant, so who would know anyway? Cosgrove is a wack job, that’s what I think and i’m surprised that law was ever passed, they need to get their priorities straight or make abortion a felony by law.
Comment posted October 27th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Lauren says:
I’m surprised you guys don’t like what Cosgrove suggested. Happy that you don’t, but I’m surprised you care about privacy of this nature.
Comment posted October 28th, 2006 at 11:14 am
mary kay says:
Lauren,
Why would this surprise you? We are against the intentional killing of a human life. Why would we want to punish a woman who lost her child through no fault of her own? I believe our views are consistent. Murder vs. Nature…seems like a no-brainer. I only said that it would confirm the humanity of the unborn child lending credence to a No-abortion law, but not at the price of innocent women. We are not irrational. We don’t need to lie, cheat and sneak in order to show that abortion is wrong. People will come to their senses eventually. The truth will win out. Hitler was shut down, slavery was ended. I have faith in people. In the end they usually see the light and end the evil…we just have to be patient and remember that it’s not Mary Kay and Pansy and Rosie that are being fought. But God. While we would surely lose this battle on our own, He will win. He always does. Always.
MK
Comment posted October 28th, 2006 at 1:17 pm