Monday, February 1, 2010

Jake Payne hates babies

What's up with some of the pro-choicers lately?

First, Jonathan Meador in LEO.

And now, Jake Payne at PageOne. (Warning: Jake likes to use colorful language.)

Jake is the #1 political/social blogger in Kentucky. (I'm only #5 or so.) I enjoy following local politics through his blog-- even if I disagree with many of his opinions.

Jake wrote this:

I love that the gay-haters and lady-haters can get a fancy Super Bowl ad on CBS but a gay dating site gets rejected.

This, in response to two stories I've covered as well-- the proposed Super Bowl ads from Focus on the Family (the Tebow, pro-life ad) and ManCrunch (a dating site for male homosexuals).

I understand the passions of both sides in the abortion debate. On the one hand, pro-lifers want to restrict the liberty of women who have a baby in their womb. On the other hand, pro-choicers want to end the life of that baby. There's a lot at stake.

So, on the one hand, given what's at stake, I can appreciate and respect Jake's fire on this issue. On the other hand, I prefer civility-- even in something so important-- and giving people the dignity of their chosen labels (unless it's ridiculous).

But if you're going to go with fire, then you need to expect-- or even demand-- fire from the other side.

Jake doesn't seem to see it that way.

In response, I wrote:

A smart, capitalistic move by ManCrunch; well-played.

I hope the baby-haters can tolerate the Tebow ad.

In reply, Jake wrote:

If you wish to comment here, keep your s### in check.


This isn’t Jesus central. So you’ll accept the fact that the authors of this site support a woman’s right to choose and aren’t supportive of allowing wingnut white men to make all decisions for women based on their perverted religious opinions. If you want to espouse that s###, do so elsewhere.

In response, I wrote:

The post said “lady-haters”. So to be consistent, it’s baby-haters on the other side. Both terms are ridiculous, but I’m willing to play ridiculous for consistency’s sake…

Of course, you can support a woman’s right to choose– in opposition to white (and non-white), wingnut (and normal), religious (and non-religious) men (and women) who support pro-life for religious (and especially scientific) reasons.

But why do you characterize the debate/issue in that manner?

And Jake has left it alone from there...

Unless he has a change of mind, we have to assume that he would continue to characterize his opponents as lady-haters and himself as a baby-hater.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home