Normally, I would not use another poster’s name in a post of my own as I prefer to speak more to the content than to the generator.  However, in this case I think it is required for clarity’s sake.

I noticed that Bonnie Russell felt driven to re-post her "Personhood" rebuttal and "clean it up".  In my own opinion re-posting it was completely unnecessary as there are no supporting links for any of the alleged “facts”, but I guess you have to give her the "stick-to-it-iveness award".  I have my own suspicions as to why this was done, but since they are only that (suspicions) I’ll keep them to myself.  

However, as several commenters to her post pointed out, the post in question might have been better had she stayed on topic without the constant snide remarks at her blogging opponent (at least, that is apparently how Bonnie sees it anyway).  There were several statements made in that post that I wanted to inspect more closely here, as they are perfect examples of how to NOT HAVE A DISCUSSION.  I’d like to address those statements – golly, I hope Bonnie doesn't mind.

Let's start with the opening:
“ Stellaa’s “Personhood vs. Women’s Rights post represented everything wrong with bureaucrats who don't understand how government works. “

This statement immediately sets Bonnie up as an expert and attempts to ridicule her opponent.  Apparently, if one does not agree with Bonnie’s alleged "facts" then one does not understand how government works.  I suppose that my ability to think independently and to actually READ for myself means I don’t understand how government works either.  Though, truth be told, we are never presented with either WHY Bonnie apparently “understands how government works” better than the rest of us, or specifically why Stellaa does not understand.    I suppose that it has something to do with being a bureaucrat – that might explain things, except I’m NOT a bureaucrat and since I agreed with Stellaa’s view I must not understand how government works.  A paradox!  Maybe somewhere further down we’ll get a clearer accounting of that.

In support of that paragraph I’d like to provide Bonnie’s own comment to Stellaa on the post (this is of course just a snip that applies):
“So I’ll repeat it: This post never would have happened had you simply just fixed a post that was 180 degrees wrong. But you couldn't do it.”  Wow, if Stellaa had only altered her opinion to match Bonnie’s, we wouldn’t even be having a discussion.  Brilliant!

“Beginning with South Dakota  HB 1171 which was prominently featured in her post, Stellaa wrote:
"Once you establish personhood you can go as far as the South Dakota legislature and define a justifiable homicide if you kill someone who is conducting an abortion or choosing to have one."
ALERT:  Flat out Wrong.  Turns out Stellaa does not know how to read a bill.  Worse, when pointed in the right direction, so she (or anyone) could hear the taped hearings, Stellaa refused to correct her post.
Fact:  HB1171 began not because of a woman was trying to have a baby, or trying not to have a baby, but to provide by code, additional, legal self-defense for a pregnant women during an attack.”

Incredible.  How could I not have seen that?  That statement Stellaa made is FLAT-OUT WRONG because it simply deduces that, once legislation is imposed that makes a “fetus” a person then it is a simple short step for the pro-life lobby to undo Roe V. Wade or justify the murder of those who perform abortions.  Let me see if I can counter the “facts” presented with some simple statements of my own:

Bonnie – “Fact:  HB1171 began not because of a woman was trying to have a baby, or trying not to have a baby, but to provide by code, additional, legal self-defense for a pregnant women during an attack.”

Q – Women ALREADY have a legal defense for using deadly force.  We ALL do. It is, in fact, CALLED SELF-DEFENSE.  Duh.  As for the bill, the original intent of the bill is immaterial at this point, Bonnie.  It had been MODIFIED and sent to the chambers for discussion AS IT STOOD AFTER BEING MODIFIED.  The INTENT OF IT IN ITS CURRENT FORM is what matters, as that is what was being discussed in chambers.  


Bonnie – “In 1999, and pregnant with quadruplets, Jacqueline Kerr, stabbed her boyfriend to death after he attacked her, kicking her in the abdomen.  Kerr wound up being charged with manslaughter after his death, and after the babies who arrived too early and died (due to complications from the injuries he inflicted.)
So in the better late than never department….Senator Jensen introduced  HB 1171 to give women who were attacked additional defenses. “

Q – I love this part here, truly.  I mean, this is a FACT right here, isn’t it?  Someone was “charged” with manslaughter for defending herself and her unborn fetuses.  Now, I don’t know if you knew this but there’s this thing in law called “self-defense” (but I digress - I‘ve already mentioned that, didn‘t I?).  It permits people whose lives are in danger to actually DEFEND THEMSELVES WITH LETHAL FORCE.  So, why is it we need another law that SPECIFICALLY PROTECTS THE UNBORN?  Explain to me, please, how THIS CASE is any different from any person attacking ANY OTHER PERSON?  Maybe, just maybe, Stellaa’s point about this being a foothold for the pro-life zealots has some MERIT?  Ya think?

But most importantly, Bonnie, I spent nearly a half hour combing through search results and I couldn’t find a peep about this case.  Not a single article.  Now, the internet was sure around in 1999 and this would have been an important case.  Yet I can find no statements that she was actually brought to trial.  In fact, I couldn’t find a single blurb on this case.  

So, since Bonnie didn’t bother to say WHERE she got her facts from (in FACT, there isn’t a SINGLE LINK or attribution in her ENTIRE post) I guess we are simply supposed to TRUST HER.

Not me.  I’m from Missouri.  I don’t care if you’ve posted about this previously; if you did, then you should LINK YOUR PRIOR POST.  I’m not about to go digging through your old posts to try and find one where you may have made a point.  YOU are the writer, the responsibility for providing your “facts” and their supporting statements is ON YOU.

Bonnie – “Senator Jensen remarked the cause of death for most pregnant women - is and continues to be, men.   Check the stats.  Exactly why GPS with Victim Notification is needed to level the playing field.”

Q – Um, wow.  That was a stunner.  I would have thought that the leading cause of death for most pregnant women would be childbirth.  

That is sarcasm, if you must know.  I’d bet, if you checked the stats as well, you’d find that the leading cause of death for most men is – GASP – other men.  The leading cause of death amongst squirrels is probably automobiles.  So?

Then oddly enough there is that gratuitous link to your pet product.  How is any of this paragraph even RELEVANT to the discussion?  

Instead of actually breaking down Stellaa’s view point by point and refuting what was written, Bonnie then continues in ad hominem mode:

Bonnie - “For me it fully illustrated the Tea Party dynamic.  Not only do people who have a bias do not for a second want to be bothered by the facts...but they don't want their friends to be troubled by facts, either.”

Q – Where to start? Well, the first sentence is a simple attempt to smear by association, a common tactic used in argument.  Knowing Stellaa (well, as much as I can know anyone from reading their posts), associating her with the Tea Party in any way is laughable (the only kind way to put it).  The second sentence is grammatically incorrect in so many ways that it hurts my eyes.  However, we’ll have to just chalk that (and the other horrific constructs in the post) up to Bonnie’s over-zealous desire to “correct Stellaa”.  Why Bonnie is now the arbiter of truth and justice is not something we’ve ever been shown, but we’ll just have to run with it for now.  Apparently we must be living in Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange” society, but I didn’t get the memo.  

However, regarding the INTENT of that short paragraph I think the same can be applied to Bonnie.  I mean, Stellaa has NO RIGHT to post an opposing viewpoint.  Since Bonnie disagrees with Stellaa and has “provided facts”, Stellaa MUST bow to Bonnie’s superior intellect and correct her post.  WHY IS IT that anyone who disagrees with you (or with your “facts”) is WRONG?  Have you anything to concretely prove that Stellaa’s point of view is completely without merit?

Anything compelling, actually presented by a site that’s respected for journalistic integrity?

Bonnie and I can agree on one thing, apparently:

Bonnie - “The facts?  They remain in very short supply.”

Q - “Yup.  Let me know when you actually PRODUCE SOME.”

Oh, and Bonnie?  You might want to brush up on parliamentary procedure:
Following this hearing, the bill can be voted upon
or tabled. If the bill is tabled, it may or may not
come back for a vote. If it does not come back for
a vote, the bill “dies”.

http://www.in.gov/gov/files/BillintoLaw.pdf

So, simply “hog housing” a bill does NOT mean it has been defeated.

Thought you might want to know.


To recap:

No reasons given why Stellaa does not (or any of us do not, for that matter) understand how government works or why Bonnie should be seen as the expert in this regard.

Apparently commenting on current legislation proposed in its current form is WRONG.  One should only comment on the ORIGINAL INTENT of proposed legislation.

FACTS when presented in absence of any support are not FACTS – they are SUPPOSITION.  But I suppose that may only be my take on it.

Presenting an opposing viewpoint that criticizes someone’s research methods and facts should be construed as a “personal attack”.  Seriously, is it being suggested that if I disagree with someone then I am participating in the “Tea Party dynamic”?  Further, how can it be seen as “Tea Party” fear-mongering and deflection for one poster to be presenting their “facts” yet not the other?  Well, maybe I am the only one who sees it that way.  

When faced with a strident and demanding opposing viewpoint, one must immediately cave in and declare the other person correct.  After all, it doesn’t matter WHY a person might not agree with you or your “facts”, especially those facts that are lacking any semblance of support.  

Lastly, it’s always a great idea to shove an irrelevant product endorsement into your argument as it only enhances your credibility.  

I think this in all likelihood is the longest post I’ve made to date.  Sorry for the length.