Sufficient Scruples

Bioethics, healthcare policy, and related issues.

July 6, 2006

Anti-Choice Tool Confirms Stereotype (One in a Continuing Series . . .)

by @ 3:19 PM. Filed under Access to Healthcare, Autonomy, General, Healthcare Politics, Reproductive Ethics, Sex, StegoWeek, Women's Issues

[Note to visitors from Feministing: Hello! Glad to have you here.]

[Same also to visitors from Feministe, Haloscan, Alternet, and the several others who have picked up on this post. Over 3,000 of you have visited in the last 5 days. Welcome, all!]

[At this point, let me just say: “Hello, and thanks!” to all the new visitors from the many sites that have linked this story. I’ve been overwhelmed – 7,000 hits in 6 days, from a pre-story average of about 35 per day! – and gratified by the attention. I can no longer keep up with the flood.]

Sometimes God hands you one on a plate.

The Onion ran a blunt but funny parody of the right wing’s delusional vision of women who have abortions (“Well, I don’t care what the pro-lifers say… I am totally psyched for this abortion! . . . Those pro-life activists made it pretty clear that, unlike me, they actually think abortion is bad and to be avoided. Are they nuts? Abortion is the best! . . . I seriously cannot wait for all the hemorrhaging and the uterine contractions. This abortion is going to be so amazing. . . . See you at my post-abortion party, everybody!”).

Exceeding even my low expectations, some imbecile “pro-lifer” took it seriously, and posted a lengthy finger-wagging screed about this woman’s irresponsibly light-hearted attitude toward “the killing of innocent human beings! [exclamation point original]”

She says:

“If my HMO wouldn’t have bowed to [pro-life] pressure not to cover oral contraceptives, I never would’ve gotten pregnant in the first place.”

Sorry ma’am, if you hadn’t had sex you wouldn’t have gotten pregnant, it’s not the HMO’s fault for not supporting your promiscuity while not married. . . .

Miss Weber, you have killed your child . . . . That does make you an admitted murderer. . . . I’m going to pray for your forgiveness and for the suffering which you will endure when you realize what you have done. Every baby you see from that moment on is going to wake you up to the realization that you killed your child.

Why do I get the feeling that when “Pete” at “March Together for Life” says he’s going to pray for “Miss Weber’s” suffering, that’s exactly what he means?

And yes, true to form, he posted both the name and the photograph of the person whose suffering he was praying for (not realizing that both are fake).

So, Pete, even though it’s not yet the end of the week, you take the prize. For being an unbelievable moron, for sanctimoniousness above and beyond the call of decency, and for confirming in hilarious detail the sheer boneheaded idiocy of the pro-life movement, you are officially the Stegosaurus of the Week. Next time try thinking with the cerebral ganglion, not the sacral one.

Our lovely “Stegosaurus of the Week” Award GIF: Official Winners may feel free to add it to their Web sites.


Man, it’s just too easy. After getting hammered with a 4-day surge of traffic from this site, and then the several who picked up the story and linked him directly, and after suffering several hundred unanimously derisory comments (still my favorite: “I’m pro-life, but sweet Jesus you’re an idiot. For your next post, how about a passionate speech on the need to immediately free Prince Albert from the can?”), “Pete” has finally responded. Not, as many had predicted, by taking his insanely stupid post down, but by following up with another attack on the same satirical Onion piece and claiming he was right all along!

I was tempted to just ignore it, but it’s priceless. He repeatedly refers to “Miss Weber” as a real person, insisting that “she” really said all the things in the article. He then asserts that he is entitled to believe that the article was real because that’s how pro-choice people really talk, as witnessed by a totally deranged conversation he claims to have had with a pro-choice woman while he was setting up his “Genocidal Awareness Project” signs in a public park. He concludes: “I think I did a good job of turning the ‘satire’ right back at them, don’t you?”

It’s hard to tell what he means by this, since, just before that comment, he quoted his own research into the meaning of “satire”:

Hmm, let’s look up the term satire:

“witty language used to convey insults or scorn; “he used sarcasm to upset his opponent””

Yep. He looked up the wrong word, then quoted it. [UPDATE: To be fair, it should be noted that there is an online dictionary that gives the above as a definition of “satire”. It’s obviously a bad definition, but I suppose he’s entitled to use it. See comments below.]

I dunno. The Stegosaurus of the Week award was just recently instituted, and was intended more as a joke than anything (I hesitate to use the word “satire”). There aren’t really any rules for it, so I don’t know if I can give it out at the beginning of the week, or to the same person twice for what is essentially the same act of stupidity. I do strongly suspect we’re not going to see anything this gaspingly dumb again, certainly not in the next three days. Unless Pete keeps posting.

Pete: don’t.

ABSOLUTELY FINAL UPDATE: He posted another self-defensive statement when his first defense only drew more flames. When all three absolutely idiotic posts collectively garnered over 1,500 comments, virtually every one of them harshly critical, he moved the entire content of his blog to a new URL. I could almost sympathize with that, except that he moved the clueless anti-Onion rants along with it and left them up on the new blog, with no retraction and no indication that their subject was fictional. (He does appear finally to have figured this out – after having it pointed out in unmistakeable terms 1,500 times – but he hasn’t deleted, retracted, or edited the two posts in which he claimed the Onion story was real.) The new blog requires registration for comments (I wonder why), so he’s insulated from criticism but still puts forward his clueless and false rants about abortion.

I give up. I will post nothing more on this. This dipshit is simply far beyond help, and there’s nothing to be gained by flogging the incident. As some have begun to note on his old comments threads, there may not be any more point in commenting on his posts either. Whatever they are capable of learning from this, he and his supporters no doubt already have. Insulting him or them just to do it is gratuitous and makes no political point that hasn’t already been made. Best just to ignore him. As for me, I’m very grateful for the nearly 6,000 visits I’ve now received from this and the Margaret Sanger post (above) – I do hope many of you will come back here regularly – but I consider the incident closed now. He’s done, we’ve stuck a fork in him (over and over . . .), and it’s time to move on.

PLEASE MAKE ME STOP . . . (A Post-Final Update): I said I wouldn’t, but . . . . Pete now claims that he was in on the joke all along! It’s obviously not true – his first followup to his idiotic post repeated his direct criticisms of “Miss Weber” and claimed that he knew she was real based on his extensive (and apparently bizarre, if not imaginary) interactions with other pro-choicers. His second and third followups (he’s now up to a total of 5 posts on this one article) both put the word “satire” in scare quotes and/or a question mark, while still seriously criticising the “pro-choice” agenda he claims to find in the Onion piece. The guy really does not know when to give up. Now, finally, he says:

Point one – My article was a joke, which obviously thousands of you didn’t get, all the while accusing me of being the stupidest person on the planet.

Pete . . . you are the stupidest person on the planet. Really.

He also removed the entire set of comments from all the posts on his original blog and disabled commenting both there and on the new blog he fled to. He claims it was because several commenters had posted his home address and phone number. He could have deleted just those comments, however, so this, along with his “my article was a joke” post, seem like a major revisionist effort – for which he deserves only more scorn. But my reason for posting this (final! really!) Update is to ask people not to post private information, especially home or work addresses, phone numbers, or the names or descriptions of family members, on the Web. As a tactic in these political debates, it’s vicious and unworthy. Even when not intended to intimidate – for instance, as a way of needling Pete by making donations to Planned Parenthood in his name, as one commenter below recommends – it can lead to harassment and invasions of privacy by others. It’s especially dangerous where families are affected. So I recommend never doing it for any reason, and, to the extent that I am responsible for having started this mess, I feel an obligation to ask people not to do it to Pete, anti-choice idiot that he is, either here or on any other Web sites.

34 Responses to “Anti-Choice Tool Confirms Stereotype (One in a Continuing Series . . .)”

  1. Liz Says:

    The unsophisticated have fallen for Onion parodies before. Stupids On Parade (at my blog–shameless blog plug)– my favorite being

    The 2000 Onion piece, “Harry Potter Books Spark Rise in Satanism Among Children,” included the following, entirely fictional quote for J.K. Rowling:

    Rowling quote from The Onion story.

    “I think it’s absolute rubbish to protest children’s books on the grounds that they are luring children to Satan,” Rowling was said to have told a London Times reporter. “People should be praising them for that! These books guide children to an understanding that the weak, idiotic Son of God is a living hoax who will be humiliated when the rain of fire comes, and will suck the greasy cock of the Dark Lord while we, his faithful servants, laugh and cavort in victory.”

    Fundamentalist Christian groups fell for the satire, and demanded Rowling be removed from libraries.

  2. Kevin T. Keith Says:

    They’re still demanding it, though usually without that quote. There seems to be no limit to that kind of idiocy.

  3. Sufficient Scruples » Blog Archive » Holy Third Wave, Batman! . . . Says:

    […] This blog has been up for a year, and now averages about 30 hits a day. You can imagine how thrilled I am. But just now I noticed I had received close to 200 hits in less than 3 hours, and the rocket shows no signs of decelerating. WTF? Quick inspection (love that Sitemeter!) demonstrated that it’s all coming by way of a link from Jessica at Feministing, to my post about the dumbass who posted screens and screens of rant about a wholly fictional article on abortion from The Onion, of all places. […]

  4. Caterwauling Says:

    […] Via Sabre. And there’s a great commentary over at Sufficient Scruples […]

  5. vicki Says:

    This is fabulous. THanks to Feministing, I’ve now been turned on to your blog! Bioethics, the Onion, and so much more! I may just link you to my upcoming website, too!

  6. Robyn Banks Says:

    Oh. My. Gosh.
    That’s hilarious. I checked out that guy’s entire blog, and he seems pretty obtuse. I’m glad your blog is getting more traffic, too, I think it’s great!

  7. Kevin T. Keith Says:

    Thanks very much to all of you, for your kind remarks.

    And, yeah, this guy takes the cake. He claims he’s been debating abortion rights for over 30 years! It’s hard to imagine nurturing that much ignorance for that long.

  8. Feministe » I’m Totally Psyched About This Abortion! Says:

    […] And the anti-choicers? At least one of them believed it, and boy did he put that little slut in her place. […]

  9. paula goldman Says:

    The poor souls in the anti-choice movement would be amusing with all their quaint little homilies. But as we all know, inability to get a clean safe abortion is too often fatal.

  10. kelly Says:

    I really hope this guy is the epitome of the anti-choice movement. Bravo!

    With people like him fighting against abortion for over 30 years, there’s no way we can criminalize abortion now! Pro-choicers got it “in da bag yo.” 🙂

  11. Brandt Says:

    You know people like him are pro-life because they know, if intelligence could be determined before birth, he wouldn’t be here now.

  12. Jeremy Says:

    You are aware that March Together for Life is, in itself, a parody web site, right?

  13. Kevin T. Keith Says:

    It’s clearly not a parody. It’s much too square for that, and the “Call for Life” links are real (though I don’t know how effective it is). The cross-links to other anti-choice blogs and organizations are real, and they have him blogrolled as well. In short, the anti-choice network thinks he’s a part of the anti-choice network.

    More than that, though, he’s just not funny enough to be satirical. The anti-choice right is nothing if not painfully sincere and grossly misinformed. Not a few of them are dumb as hell. This guy fits right in. (See his followup post, linked above.)

  14. Peggy Archer Says:

    Are you sure that it’s not a parody site?

    I’m having a hard time believing that someone can be that stupid and be able to walk upright.

  15. Mmothra Says:

    Donations to Planned Parenthood in this charming simpleton’s name, anyone?

  16. Kevin T. Keith Says:


    Now that I like!

  17. Jon Lancaster Says:

    I saw the ‘sarcasm’ definition and had to read it twice! I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who caught that!

    Plus, I learned a new term: Anti-Choice! I love it!

  18. Non-Sequitor Says:

    It is possible to make a contribution in someone’s name, and they’ll get a thank-you note from the organization. So, everyone, send a donation to Planned Parenthood, say it is in honor of Peter Shinn, and ask them to send an acknowledgment to him at his home at [home address deleted; please see “Note” below – KTK]. You can make a donation online at, but regretfully, the only way to have a card sent to Pete is to call up Planned Parenthood at 1-800-798-7092 and give them your information verbally. For the few minutes it takes, it is worth it. Can’t you imagine Pete’s reaction when he realizes he has helped Planned Parenthood raise money? I made my contribution, I urge you to make yours.

    [NOTE: I deleted the home address above, partly because I don’t support posting private contact information of opposition parties online, whether by pro-choicers or anti-choicers, and partly because Pete has complained on his blog that he is being harrassed at home, apparently through information posted elsewhere. If you want, you can mail a check to Planned Parenthood using their recommended donation form which you can print from their Web page, here. It doesn’t say anything about gift donations, but you could certainly write a note to that effect on the form; you might also ask them to send a confirmatory e-mail to Pete’s e-mail address! But please do not post home addresses or phone numbers, or information about family or employers, here or elsewhere. That has been a growing tactic in some ugly fights lately that I think we need to avoid. (Non-Sequitor: I’m sorry to break into your comment, and I know it was not posted with the intention of causing harassment. I just want to make sure it doesn’t get used the wrong way.) – KTK]

  19. Bill O'Loofah Says:

    I’m one of the people who posted the link to Pete’s address and phone number, which he didn’t exactly take any steps to hide (it shows up on the first page of Google results for, among other things.)

    I get the argument that the guy doesn’t deserve to be harrassed at home, but I’d have a hell of a lot more sympathy if Pete didn’t spend his weekends (as is obvious from photos posted at other sites) invading other peoples’ privacy with his big displays of bloody fetuses in DC parks and such.

    Maybe the real answer, for those who feel the need to confront Pete, is to find him when he’s out in public (he drops enough breadcrumbs on his site that it shouldn’t be at all difficult) and call him out there, where you can’t possibly argue a right to privacy?

    A final bit of cluelessness: he complained about “Bill” giving out his info, but doesn’t seem to get that Bill’s real name ain’t “Bill O’Loofah.” That was a joke, too, son.

  20. kim Says:

    i got here from the None So Blind blog:

    Thanks for this. It would be really funny if it weren’t so sad.

  21. SomeLlama Says:

    “Update is to ask people not to post private information, especially home or work addresses, phone numbers, or the names or descriptions of family members, on the Web.”

    BTW, is wasn’t private information, he has freely posted this information himself on other websites.

    When he says this was the reason for deleting posting/comments, it is just a “Red Herring”

    Just a friendly FYI 🙂

  22. Pro-Choice Slut Says:

    His information is, indeed, freely available on the internet – both his home and work contact information has been repeatedly posted on several websites (by him, not pranksters).

    I sent donations to NARAL, NOW, the ACLU, and Hillary Clinton in his name, and I would have signed him up for membership in the American Communist Party if their website had worked properly.

    He’s not only stupid, he’s a pig and deserves what he gets.

  23. Huffers Says:

    n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn; “he used sarcasm to upset his opponent”
    source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

    Sorry, he looked up the right word.

    Pete’s still an idiot though. I wonder if he thinks Landover Baptist Church are his allies?

  24. Kevin T. Keith Says:

    OK – I’ll let it go, since it is in a (sort of) dictionary. But satire and sarcasm are different things.

    And even if he found the above as a dictionary definition, he still quoted the wrong example. Much more appropriate in his case is the example they give at the end of the line he failed to quote fully:

    “Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own”–Johathan Swift


  25. Huffers Says:

    I prefer the “irony is wasted on the stupid” one — which he also, notably, left out 🙂

  26. Alexis Says:

    What a knuckleneck! I am super – glad that his antics have unintentionally won hom all the bad publicity? What more could you ask for?
    P.S. Please contact Planned Parenthood, because women’s rights ARE human rights!

  27. ent lord Says:

    Someone send him a copy of “A Modest Proposal”. OMG not only are they aborting children, they are cooking and eating them too.

  28. Samantha Says:

    WOW. I literally stumbled into this from the comments and had to search back to find the hilarious post. Thanks for linking to it. I can’t imagine how this guy interacts with people in his day to day life. I am pretty sure that the girl in the park was either very misunderstood by him, or he just imagined her for our benefit. I’m pretty sure that if the girl in the park was me, he would have gotten much more intelligent arguements that he wrote about.
    Thats all I gotta say about that

  29. reference Says:


    Sufficient Scruples » Blog Archive » Anti-Choice Tool Confirms Stereotype (One in a Continuing Series . . .)

  30. รับทํา seo ติดหน้าแรก Says:

    รับทํา seo ติดหน้าแรก

    Sufficient Scruples » Blog Archive » Anti-Choice Tool Confirms Stereotype (One in a Continuing Series . . .)

  31. Porter Ou Says:

    Thanks a lot for the article post.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.

  32. Sandy Carouthers Says:

    I cannot thank you enough for the blog.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

  33. Zoo Movies Says:


  34. Porn Movies Says:

Leave a Reply

Logged in as . Logout »

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge


Sufficient Scruples:



July 2006
« Jun   Aug »

Links & Feeds:

RSS 2.0

Comments RSS 2.0


Follow KTKeith on Twitter


Powered by WordPress

Get Firefox!

Theme copyright © 2002–2018Mike Little.

Ask the Ethicist!


White Papers:

Bioethics Links: