Hey, guy passing out fetus dolls at a Halloween event, come on down to the pit.

[Troppus]

Good God, OMG’s still online, which means he’s painstakingly composing another lengthy, purposefully obtuse post which will contain some of the following non-issues and smokescreens:

He might propose the idea that the “gift” of the fetus doll is actually an attempt by the fundie to introduce biology to children since the US is falling behind in science scores

He might claim that the fundie is actually doing liberals a favor by introducing the topic of sex education at home before they can learn it at school

He might attempt to derail the thread by defending the legality of offering the polarizing treat (Don’t take the bait, Bricker)

He might claim that “most children love dolls” and would have no frame of reference outside of “toy”, therefore it is harmless and those opposed are overreacting without ever hearing from the actual parents.

He might claim the fundie used the Halloween bags as a vehicle to distribute his “literature” to adults, as confused children would likely take the doll to parents, who were, in fact, the intended audience for his campaign.

Oh, and he will, of course, revert to his usual “well, libs, is it tissue, or a person, you can’t have it both ways” diversionary tactic.

I’m sure I missed a few of OMG’s usual fallacious tactics, but I guarantee he will not come anywhere close to addressing the actual issue at hand, but instead will puke up a long litany of hypotheticals only vaguely related to the topic, and will do so in a prudish, withering tone.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

^Funny post. See folks, that’s a straw man

@leftfield6

I could also look at your post earlier in this thread in which you said “So you consider a piece of feces to be equivalent to a fetus” in response to Euphonious Polemic’s offer of putting a turd in your Halloween bag. I just took your tactics to ridiculous level.

So you took Euphonious Polemic’s point, of which there was none, and simply reiterated it? Why? I mean, I realize you like to draw false equivalencies and all, but that’s not much of a reason.

Never said I wanted to do that, just trying to see where your line was in determining what was okay to be foisted on our little 3 year old Suzy. I’ll admit that some items were added to my list just for comedic value, but I’ll simplify it for you below. Also, you misplaced my “mostly” modifier there, completely changing what I said. I’m sure that was an accident.:rolleyes:

And what’s offensive about a fetus doll? I’ve asked… Quite a few times now. I’m still waiting and probably will be for a while.

Simply put, there is nothing inherently offensive about a fetus doll. Slipping it into a kid’s bag at a Halloween event, that is the offensive part.

…Oh, wait. (S)he finally answered. Yay! Anyway, if there’s nothing offensive about a fetus doll, then what’s the problem with putting it in a kid’s bag at a Halloween event?

Okay, so here is your simplified list. Which of these would you not be okay with in Suzy’s Halloween bag?

[ul]
[li]non-christian religious texts[/li][li]condoms (wish I had that on the original list, dammit)[/li][li]anti-gay pamphlet[/li][li]Little Debbie Swiss Rolls[/li][/ul]

Just the last. Unless that’s a euphemism for something else.

[Troppus]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

If I may:

“What’s that?”
“It’s a fetus.”
“What’s a fetus?”
“It’s what you looked like before you were born.”
“Oh, okay.”

No mention of abortion or whatever.

Your assertion that giving a child a fetus doll will have an adult conversation hoisted upon the parent is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It doesn’t require a conversation of abortion to explain what a fetus is. In a day and age where young children see their mothers walk around pregnant, where they can view ultrasounds of their soon-to-be sibling (or even a friend or other family member’s sibling) and can see pregnancy openly on TV, giving a kid a doll of a fetus is going to spark a conversation on abortion? Really? Sounds like a lot of fearmongering to me. If we’re going to follow this crappy chain of logic, then giving a kid a doll of a baby should be equally as wrong as it should also spark a debate on abortion. Because, you know, babies equal sex and sex equals a conversation regarding reproductive issues or however it goes.

Pardon me while I go roll my eyes.

Who knew that giving a kid a fetus doll constitutes indoctrination.

Nailed it on one: Troppus said “…children love dolls” and would have no frame of reference outside of “toy”, therefore it is harmless and those opposed are overreacting…"

So you are saying that the fundie’s intentions were completely useless, and his campaign fell short of illustrating his beliefs, since no child would question the purpose of handing out fetus dolls on Halloween in lieu of candy? That’s actually very comforting. I love it when fundies fail to advance their directives.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Oh. I was going to say fetusophobe. Glad you corrected me before I did!

…You do realize that this is a joke, right? Coitus is the word it’s based on, lol.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Was this guy giving fetus dolls to boys? I mean, if (for toy purposes, since we have no reason to assume other motivations) “toy fetus = toy baby” in the eyes of a child, wouldn’t giving a “toy baby” to a boy run afoul of gender norms?

Toy fetuses for girls. Toy guns for boys. That’s what I’d’ve thought God wanted.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Troppus

Nailed it on one: Troppus said “…children love dolls” and would have no frame of reference outside of “toy”, therefore it is harmless and those opposed are overreacting…"

I think you’re giving yourself just a wee bit too much credit.

So you are saying that the fundie’s intentions were completely useless, and his campaign fell short of illustrating his beliefs, since no child would question the purpose of handing out fetus dolls on Halloween in lieu of candy? That’s actually very comforting. I love it when fundies fail to advance their directives.

When did I say that the Fundie’s (oh, I love that word) intentions were completely useless?

…Oh, wait. Never.

Since when does ‘Why did he give me this?’ equal ‘What’s this?’.

…Oh, wait. It doesn’t. It’s (some of) the parents questioning the motive.

Now since we’re in the mood for conjuring up extreme straw men, the parents who complained are just mad because they’re going to have a hard time telling their kid that the unborn are just masses of tissue.

…Oh, wait. That’s not a straw man.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

…You do realize that this is a joke, right? Coitus is the word it’s based on, lol.

Yes, I know.

[Chessic_Sense]

@olivesmarch4th

Personally, this doesn’t offend me. The fetuses just look like little babies. Are they anatomically correct? As long as they’re anatomically correct, I wouldn’t mind. I mean, it’s weird as all hell, don’t get me wrong… but as far as finding it offensive, nah.

'zactly. I don’t see where the offense is coming from. Sure, it’s a dick move, but so what? Just toss the thing out like you do with all the pencils and toothbrushes you get trick or treating.

@leftfield6

OMGABC, see if you can follow along now…

So, using little Suzy’s Halloween bag as a vehicle for delivering political or religious messages is okay with you, right?

So, let’s experiment. Lets replace the fetus doll with:
[ul]
[li]a copy of the Bible[/li][li]a copy of the Book of Morman[/li][li]a copy of the Quran[/li][li]a giant dildo[/li][li]a loaded firearm[/li][li]a copy of Hustler magazine[/li][li]an R rated movie[/li][li]a photo of Michele Bachman[/li][/ul]

Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Definitely no. No. Maybe. Yes.

@Troppus

Of course he meant to spawn conversations children aren’t prepared for, that is the intention behind this kind of indoctrination.

Funny. Usually the ones keeping the opposing view away from their kids are the ones doing the indoctrination.

@Troppus

He might attempt to derail the thread by defending the legality of offering the polarizing treat

I’m going going to defend the legality of it vis-a-vie the law, but I will vis-a-vie the Rules of Halloween! Going up to a house is like a carny game. You rings the bell, you takes you chances. Sometimes you get a full-size Butterfinger (:D). Sometimes you get a pencil (thanks, lady :(). Sometimes you get a Chick tract, and sometimes you get a fetus doll. That’s the way it goes. Look, some people are dicks about Halloween, but you’re on their turf. Assuming it’s not dangerous or illegal, anything is fair game to go in the sack! You have the right to think it’s a shitty treat. You don’t have the right to be offended.

[billfish678]

@Chessic_Sense

'zactly. I don’t see where the offense is coming from. Sure, it’s a dick move,. You don’t have the right to be offended.

You always have the right to be offended. What you don’t have is the right to NOT be offended, if you know what I mean.

[Skywatcher]

@Troppus

Good God, OMG’s still online, which means he’s painstakingly composing another lengthy, purposefully obtuse post which will contain some of the following non-issues and smokescreens:

He might propose the idea that the “gift” of the fetus doll is actually an attempt by the fundie to introduce biology to children since the US is falling behind in science scores

He might claim that the fundie is actually doing liberals a favor by introducing the topic of sex education at home before they can learn it at school

He might attempt to derail the thread by defending the legality of offering the polarizing treat (Don’t take the bait, Bricker)

He might claim that “most children love dolls” and would have no frame of reference outside of “toy”, therefore it is harmless and those opposed are overreacting without ever hearing from the actual parents.

He might claim the fundie used the Halloween bags as a vehicle to distribute his “literature” to adults, as confused children would likely take the doll to parents, who were, in fact, the intended audience for his campaign.

Oh, and he will, of course, revert to his usual “well, libs, is it tissue, or a person, you can’t have it both ways” diversionary tactic.

I’m sure I missed a few of OMG’s usual fallacious tactics, but I guarantee he will not come anywhere close to addressing the actual issue at hand, but instead will puke up a long litany of hypotheticals only vaguely related to the topic, and will do so in a prudish, withering tone.

Almost makes me miss december. Almost.

[Chessic_Sense]

@billfish678

You always have the right to be offended. What you don’t have is the right to NOT be offended, if you know what I mean.

Well, when I say “have a right”, I’m not suggesting someone will come and arrest you if you get offended. I’m (hopefully clearly) saying that you look like an idiot if you stand there stomping your feet and huffing about something like that. It looks as stupid as flipping the Monopoly board when you’re losing. You play the game called Trick or Treat, you take the result.

[Troppus]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

I think you’re giving yourself just a wee bit too much credit.

Yawn
You’re a predictable hack, OMG, and anyone with a passing familiarity with your style knows exactly what rhetoric to expect from you.

Chessic Sense, If I were the parent of one of those kids, I’d have no problem explaining what the fetus doll is and treat it as any other biological model. I’d be mildly miffed, just as I would with a Watchtower pamphlet, but kid could decide whether to keep the doll or toss it. My child will have a clear and comprehensive understanding of reproduction long before he is tempted to employ his knowledge in a physical manner. So no biggie for me.

But for those parents who choose to wait until their children are farther along developmentally before introducing reproduction, this was a dick move designed to force the conversation. But, like **OMG **said, the fundie’s tactics probably failed to hit the mark, so no real harm done.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Troppus

Yawn
You’re a predictable hack, OMG, and anyone with a passing familiarity with your style knows exactly what rhetoric to expect from you.

Yeah, a little bit of reality

But for those parents who choose to wait until their children are farther along developmentally before introducing reproduction, this was a dick move designed to force the conversation. But, like **OMG **said, the fundie’s tactics probably failed to hit the mark, so no real harm done.

I’m going to come out and say that I’m pretty sure you don’t know what the “Fundie’s tactic” was or is.

[Czarcasm]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

I’m going to come out and say that I’m pretty sure you don’t know what the “Fundie’s tactic” was or is.

And the rest of us will take that as confirmation that he does.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Czarcasm

And the rest of us will take that as confirmation that he does.

You know, I’ve been in enough threads regarding pregnancy, abortion, birth control and the like to have realized that, on topics like these, arguing with some of you is a lost cause because, no matter what, you’ll stick to your guns, even if you state something that is wrong and can be flatly proven as wrong or simply is so far removed from the truth that it leaves one scratching their head and wondering.

/probablerunonsentence

…But I’m a sucker for punishment.

The church, and pro-lifers in general, are far more pragmatic than to set “forcing a conversation” as the goal of handing out dolls in the shape of a fetus. If that was the goal, then it’d be easier to just tell the kid to go ask his or her parents what abortion was. It’s more direct, not to mention it’s totally free. No, the goal is simply to highlight the fact that the unborn are as much as humans as anyone else, only immature (for lack of a better word). Give a kid a fetus doll and let him or her see that it looks like a miniature baby. It’s the same deal with pictures of ultrasounds (which, apparently, are the mortal enemy of pro-choicers). There’s no conversation is necessary, except maybe to explain to him or her that’s what (s)he looked like before they were born. After that, the rest is easy as pie. It’s a lot harder to pass off the unborn as, say, “masses of tissue” or “blobs of cells” when the unborn are visible, than when they are not.

Or, “Blah blah blah blah blah”, which is what you probably read anyway

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

The church, and pro-lifers in general, are far more pragmatic than to set “forcing a conversation” as the goal of handing out dolls in the shape of a fetus.

Did anyone say anything about the church or pro-lifers in general? I thought this was about one specific nut.

You know, like all those threads about specific nuts who shoot doctors and plant bombs at the Olympics and such.

[Sitnam]

@Malthus

Yup. It is highly offensive to prostheletize about social issues on a kiddie holiday like Halloween. The fact that it is on a topic of no interest whatsoever to pre-adolescent children makes it offensive and incomprehesibly stupid.

Like passing out crosses to children in order to keep the ‘Christ in Christmas’ this pings the douche meter.

But offensive?

Pre-adolescent children don’t care as you pointed out, religious parents get the point (even if it’s not the venue), and pro-choice parents think a fetus is just tissue.

[Troppus]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

…But I’m a sucker for punishment.

Don’t flatter yourself. Dissension isn’t persecution by any definition.

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

The church, and pro-lifers in general, are far more pragmatic than to set “forcing a conversation” as the goal of handing out dolls in the shape of a fetus. If that was the goal, then it’d be easier to just tell the kid to go ask his or her parents what abortion was. It’s more direct, not to mention it’s totally free. No, the goal is simply to highlight the fact that the unborn are as much as humans as anyone else, only immature (for lack of a better word). Give a kid a fetus doll and let him or her see that it looks like a miniature baby. It’s the same deal with pictures of ultrasounds (which, apparently, are the mortal enemy of pro-choicers). There’s no conversation is necessary, except maybe to explain to him or her that’s what (s)he looked like before they were born. After that, the rest is easy as pie. It’s a lot harder to pass off the unborn as, say, “masses of tissue” or “blobs of cells” when the unborn are visible, than when they are not

This is rich. From the same right winger who would have apoplexy if the topic of reproduction was introduced at any level of grade school, junior high, or high school. According to your team, “where do babies come from” should only be addressed at home at the behest of the parents. Planting a socially controversial bomb in the trick or treat bags of kiddies is a deliberate attempt to influence decisions kids will make about reproduction later in life. Kind of a shitty thing to do to a little kid, in my opinion, since reproductive decisions should not only be made by those either on the cusp of or in the throes of fertility, but by those who have a broader understanding of science, medicine, and ethics. The topic of reproduction is either a discussion decided at home by family, or it is fodder for the public forum. You can’t have it both ways, OMG.

There must be an echo in here, because I’m sure I’ve heard that before…anyone know who else said “You can’t have it both ways?”

Not to worry. I’d bet that the pro-reproductive rights parents who stumbled across the wrinkled, pink conversation piece err on the side of science and reason, and miffed or not were well-equipped to address the issue of reproduction, person-hood, modern medicine and had no trouble explaining to the kiddies, “This represents a fetus, when it is still a cluster of rapidly dividing cells and before it becomes a baby. You know, like how the egg you ate for breakfast is not yet a chicken. Now go enjoy your candy.”

[YogSothoth]

It would have been ok as a joke, like people said, if it was a chocolate fetus or something, but trying to push some stupid message like anti-abortion is sickening. Maybe for Christmas, I’ll donate some Scientology handbooks to the local homeless shelter

[Sudden_Kestrel]

This is the part that gives me the creeps (emphasis mine.)

Edmonds said that his organization gave out candy, like other groups at the event, and dolls to those whose parents approved.

BTW, since when does a fetus qualify as a “doll?”

[billfish678]

@YogSosoth

It would have been ok as a joke, like people said, if it was a chocolate fetus or something, but trying to push some stupid message like anti-abortion is sickening. Maybe for Christmas, I’ll donate some Scientology handbooks to the local homeless shelter

Around these parts we have Abortion Claus…a guy dressed like Santa protesting at the local abortion mill around the holiday season. But I never see the Abortion Turkey/Pilgrim, the Abortion New Years Baby/Old Man Time, the Abortion Cupid, the Abortion Uncle Sam or any other Abortion Holiday Persona. So, I guess the Abortion Guy only does come around about one time period per year.