Shorter SUZANNE: Poor people!? They’re about as real as Bigfoot! Maybe. Also. And fetus in excelsis.
Those goddamn poor people, why don’t they all just commit suicide? Bastards.
Spend a little less time peering out your kitchen window, Mrs. Kravitz*, and maybe other peoples’ lives won’t irritate you so much.
And you might want to choose your “inspirations” for rants on this particular subject a little more judiciously — almost anyone would be better than someone who spends half her life begging for handouts.
*NB: Only readers *of a certain age* will get that reference — sorry kids! Get off my lawn!
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/tny_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
Something I read today in the Vancouver Sun to scare the bejeebus out of SUZIE:
Even the group most resolutely against gay marriage — white evangelicals — is witnessing an attitudinal shift among younger members. Almost a quarter of young white evangelicals would accept a redefinition of marriage to accommodate gay couples. Another 28 per cent say they won’t go that far but would at least allow homosexuals to form civil unions. Put these together and a majority of future evangelical leaders accepts that gay couples deserve to have their relationships legally recognized
http://www.vancouversun.com/Life/Note+Americans+Canada+resolved+contentious+issue+four+years+fall/1376887/story.html
This article wasn’t about abortion, but as we’ve seen time and time again, in what passes for their minds, the two issues are inexplicably linkes.
Thanks for the link, RB, that’s awesome news! (And yes, the two issues are inextricably linked in the minds of fundies.)
There are many moderate evangelicals — maybe they’re finally having an effect on the older hardliners. Or the old bigots are just uh, departing, and younger attitudes are starting to prevail.
Whatever, it’s great news.
The US is so far behind us on this issue, it’s incredible. Bruce posted an article from the New York Times where they talk about “compromise” solutions — ridiculous. How about something simple like “marriage is a union between two consenting adults”. Ya think??
Ha ha! Ethel Kravitz! Awesome….
Mike
Who??
Seriously – was she on the honeymooners or something? Help us younguns understand the joke!
Mrs. Kravitz was the neighbour on the 60s TV show “Bewitched” (I think — some other old fart can correct me if I’m wrong). She was always peering out between her kitchen curtains at the neighbours and catching Samantha (the witch) in the act of doing something witchy.
Ah yes – I remember her (having watched the reruns of bewitched in the 80s)… Yup – a nosy busybody, just like Suzzie!
Here is a clip with the original Mrs. Gladys Kravitz:
Great choice of TV icon, JJ. Not only was she a busy body but watch for the pure SUZANNE shriek at the end.
HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the link, beijing!
That show was probably just about off the air by the time you were born, but obviously it lives on in perpetuity via reruns.
Actually, her name was Gladys. Loved that show when I a was kid.
Gladys! Bingo! God, I can remember exactly what she looked like…
I loved that show too. It’s funny how the husband was in Advertising and always on the verge of losing big accounts… and his boss was such a whore for the business… turned out to be not too far from the truth, eh?
I knew LOTS of Larry Tates when I was in the business.
No one can rememeber exactly what she looked like, as there were two of them. The first one died after the first season or so.
Interestingly enough the BBC recently shot a pilot for an updated (and obviously British) version of Bewitched
*Gasp* You’re right! I can remember what one of them looked like, but I don’t know which one — probably the 2nd one.
An updated version of Bewitched… that would be cool… you know, a lot of the stuff we’ve got now (cell phones, computers, ipods) probably could have been on the original show as witchcraft. I can just imagine Sam wiggling her nose and turning a little kleenex box into a mobile phone so she could call Darren from the mall and pretend she was at home!
SUZANNE is 5 feet of cunt! Nothing she posts surprises me anymore…
No kidding. She’s becoming a parody of herself. I kind of hit the wall with her defense of the church’s conduct over that 9 year old girl in Brazil. Sick sick sick.
Damn you JJ I will never let you tempt me to go to SUZANNEISTAN again!
Hey I wonder if she has that picture of the stillborn baby er… I mean aborted at 27 weeks baby in a frame on the mantle at her house. The kids must love it. Bloody hell, I thought my dad’s clown paintings were scary, now I feel lucky that I wasn’t exposed to dead fetus art as a child. Send in the clowns!
I resisted the urge and didn’t follow the link… Nice try JJ!
It’s really liberating!
Ha! Good for you, you kicked the habit. I’m close, but I still can’t resist going there once in awhile. However, the burning madness is getting to me — not just of SUZANNE, but her other commenters. They’re even more wrong and insane than she is… believe it or not.
One of them thought it would be a good idea to give that 9 year old Brazilian girl a hysterectomy — just to save the fetus (which probably would have died anyway). That’s kind of where I hit the wall.
Gawd, that picture, she posts it over and over and over… its sick. What an intrusion into someone’s private life. That fetus could have been dead in the womb for all she knows, or if it was aborted, the reason for it had to be horrible. Sicksicksick.
Re: that picture – if it was aborted, wouldn’t it yanno, have it’s brains sucked out or something? Looks pretty whole to me. She’s such an asshole.
Did someone seriously suggest giving a 9-yr old girl a hysterectomy to save the fetuses that would in all probability have killed her? Don’t they know then she can’t be a vessel for future Brazilian Catholics in the future?!? That’s the most sickening, warped thing I think I’ve ever heard. I wonder if any of them actually know any 9 yr olds.
I have a feeling that picture is from an early induction, due to malformities of the fetus (if you look at its head, its not shaped right). Anyway, so much for that…
YES someone seriously suggested that the little kid should have been given a hysterectomy, I almost puked when I read it. Sterilize the poor little thing and keep her from ever having kids later in life, just to save a couple of fetuses that would die anyway if removed at that point.
That’s where I hit the wall with that particular thread.
I’m puzzled here. Putting morality and legality aside, HOW would giving her a hysterectomy “save” those fetuses?
Ugh. I believe the “thought process” was that after a hysterectomy, the fetuses could then be removed whole, instead of being vacuumed out, and as long as they’re whole, this is somehow acceptable to the church. Even if they’re dead.
At least I think that’s how it goes, but honestly, if I completely understood I’d be worried about myself.
Ok, in that case wouldn’t it make more “sense” to give her an early caesarian which would leave the fetuses in the same state, but not render her sterile?
Besides – from a religious point of view, it doesn’t matter HOW you perform the abortion. vacuumed, D&C or hysterectomy (!?!)
What’s also being forgotten here, of course, is that IT’S OVER. She had the abortion and nothing can change that now. All they can do now is lose sympathy for their cause. This is one of those cases that they generally refuse to admit ever happens because most abortions aren’t for similar reasons but here it is – rape, incest and large chance of death for the mother, all rolled into one and even though it’s in a country that bans abortion, it was allowed, because even the anti-abortion nuts in the Brazilian legal system realize that making an exception in this case isn’t in any way the thin edge of the wedge.
They’ve just gone and proved the point that to them a baby that dies the “right” way and a dead mother is far preferable to a live mother and a baby that dies the “wrong” way. It’s not even about the fetus’s so-called life. It’s about vicious, brutal control over women.
RB – I think that’s what the church wanted to do — wait until the fetuses were old enough to possibly survive with medical assistance, and do a c-section. The only problem is that this would mean carrying the pregnancy for at least another 8 weeks, by which time the girl’s uterus would have perforated and the fetuses would have died (and probably the girl too). (And of course, that’s not even considering the agonizing pain the girl would be in during that 2 months, but they don’t care about that.)
The suggestion of a hysterectomy came from one of SUZANNE’s whacko commenters, not from the church, although the commenter seemed to feel that this option might be okay with the church.
From a religious POV, abortion is always wrong, but if the babies are “born naturally” dead, that’s okay. So a hysterectomy would probably be okay (???) Arrgh, I don’t really understand it myself.
Anyway, you are right: it’s over, and all they’re doing is proving what we’ve always suspected, that a woman’s/girl’s life is far less important to them than a fetus dying the “right” way or the “wrong” way. It’s totally about vicious control over women. Women are garbage to them, with the possible exception of the Virgin Mary.
Oh don’t get me started on her!
Let’s see… you’re pregnant and unmarried in a society that frowns on that (to say the least) and is made up of idiots. Can’t blame her for making up the whole “impregnated by God” story, but she gets 0 points for sisterly solidarity. If she hadn’t added in the “Oh, and by the way, he’s the Messiah” business, other girls in the same situation could have made the same ludicrous claim about how they got pregnant.
Oh please, JJ. It’s not even close to “turned heterosexual by God” and they’ll STILL believe that one.
We don’t really know much about people back then, but people have shown themselves willing to believe all sorts of nonsense at times where we’re far more certain of the historical record. Look at Mormanism. At least Mary produced a baby to back up her ludicrous claim.
Oh my god, I forgot all about Praying the Gay Away! Its true, that’s way less believable than “impregnated by God” — they’ll believe anything.
I can only assume their belief in that which is provably wrong (ie. the earth is 6000 years old) is because force of habit is stronger than the will to learn and change. Either that or, as one ex of mine who was catholic once told me, “scientists are controlled by the devil”
Well of course followers of mainstream religions don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old, or in Adam and Eve, Noah’s arc, parting of the Red Sea, etc.
Which always makes me want to ask them, “So on exactly what page does the bible turn from a great big steaming pile of shit into fact?”
SUZANNE was being very slippery in that thread. She was kind of advocating for C-section, kind of advocating for hysterectomy, but always insisting that she was in favour of preserving the girl’s life and terminating the pregnancy – as long as the fetuses were intact. As if somehow that counted for everything. And she continually insinuated that pregnancy isn’t such a dangerous or risky thing, even in the very young.
I think oblivious to reality is a generous way of describing her viewpoints – much the same way she’s oblivious to the reality of the poor. But I’m just a generous kinda person.
You know, brebis, through all the defense of the indefensible in that Brazil situation, the common thread has been that “pregnancy isn’t an illness, after all”. They ignore the fact that doctors have said the girl was too small to carry the pregnancy: “Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed”. This fetus-worship of theirs has escalated into some kind of terminal brain-fever.
Similar simple-mindedness applies to the poor: keep your pants on and get a university degree instead of cranking out kids starting at age 16. (All while decrying the use of contraceptives.)
“Oblivious to reality” is a nice way of putting it — I’d say stupid and viciously misogynist.
I liked this bit –
Gorgon says: You mutilated two helpless animals under your care who had no choice in the matter but you scream bloody blue murder when a woman makes a conscious choice to have her tubes tied because she wants no part of pregnancy?
SOOOOZE responds: Animals don’t get choices. They didn’t choose me. They don’t choose the food. They don’t choose ANYTHING.
So it’s ok to mutilate cats because they don’t get to choose. Sort of opposite her argument about them poe lil’ fish thingies darn’t get ta chooose and that’s why they need our protection?
Bitch!
I’m pretty sure she’s psychotic
99 & 94/100ths % sure.