...I tend to believe most hard-line anti-abortion advocates are actually prudes in disguise, resenting the idea of consequence-free sex rather than the idea of early-term abortion.

-- Zowie

Absolutely. It has little to do with "saving lives," and everything to do with deciding who should and shouldn't be having sex.

Most people don't know that three-quarters of all fertilized eggs never even implant on the uterine wall, and are therefore "aborted" naturally.

Beyond the obvious humor of this incident, it’s also troubling to recognize the core problem that Pete’s initial reaction (and continuing reaction) to the Onion’s article illustrates. The sad, but inescapable, fact is that Pete seems to represent the intransigent, calcified mentality manifested in the recent history of political advocacy in this country. That is: Establish an issue position, demonize the opposition, proselytize and recruit for support; while ignoring, distorting or marginalizing all rational disagreement and alternative viewpoints. This seems especially evident where there is any opportunity for wrapping a layer of religious “conviction” around the issue. The entry of bloggers like Pete into the discourse (and the pathetic state of the MSM) has only accelerated the downward spiral of any rational process potential that may have previously existed. The calcification of the mindset leads to desperately seeking out “documented” support for the beliefs and positions advocated (Ann Coulter, anyone?). Credibility is not questioned if the “support” is consistent with the belief. This episode is an object lesson on the prejudiced position that demands reinforcement and is inconvenienced by any degree of skepticism or countering facts. Despite the volume of responses from people who are amazed and amused at Pete’s response to what should have been an obviously satirical article; is anyone really surprised?

-- C. Mosby

Strangely enough, I usually do the opposite and mistake a real headline for The Onion. Now that is sad.

I remember that Onion article that a Beijing newspaper reprinted as if it were fact.

On the flip side, a right-winger once mistook an earnest post of mine for being a sarcastic one, and worse, one that was in agreement with him. A right-winger posted defending Ann Coulter, and I replied mocking her, but then got an email from this dem lib loony left-hating person, saying that he was happy to have met someone who thinks like he does!

As to whether Germany (where Pete was raised, apparently?) is intrinsically non-humourous, or specifically, unaware of satire, I have to take exception to that. I'm not surprised to find that, just as there are certain segments of society who can't recognize satire, there might also be whole countries that just aren't very familiar with the art. There is much fine German literature, philosophic works, and even--yes--poetry, but I have heard it said that humour is not their strong point. However, though a German Voltaire might not be in the cards, I have to say that there has been a great deal of pointed political and social satire in Germany, throughout the years. Magazines like Simplicissimus were very daring in their satire, during the Second Reich and the Weimar Republic. Their cartoons were also very funny sometimes. Some of the paintings that German Expressionist painter Otto Dix created count in my mind as very acid social satire as well.

rebecca,

I've always taken great joy in hating your articles.

Your mindless, knee-jerk leftist feminist, which always argued that men themselves are the scourge of modern ,western, society columns.

But finally, I am with you.

Finally, a column by you which puts gender differences aside, and addresses the issue for what it is.

bravo,

david

That's what caught my attention, and I think what made this whole story so notable. The whole point of the Onion piece was to poke fun at the notion held by a few people like Pete on the fringes of the abortion debate that think pro-choicers have the attitude displayed by the imaginary columnist.

I'm at least nominally pro-life. But it's a very moderate stance in that I think that almost everyone's viewpoint is legitimate and there is no absolute answer. I also realize that it's a difficult decision and process for anyone involved, no matter what is decided. People out on the edge like Pete don't get it. And what's more, when the blind spot that makes him not get it is spoofed, his blindness makes him not get THAT, in spectacular fashion.

Pete, in effect, has shown two things: first, that satire like this is needed, and secondly, that it has no effect on those who need it most.

But the irony is delicious.

Not many people are pointing out how quickly the right wing bloggers accept these types of statements as reality. This blogger noted in his defense that he did so "because he has heard the same types of comments from many other pro-life liberals. Obviously false, but no one ever asks anyone to provide proof of these types of arguments. The right aleays seems immediately ready to demonize their opponents, using that type of anecdotal evidence, such as 'some people on the left say..." or "I've heard this from people on the left...". Lies designed to prop up false and exaggerated straw man arguments.

The law of serendipity is always a funny thing. I just started reading the Letters of Obscure Men a couple of days ago and today find a sort of German guy claiming that Germans have no humor and don't get satire. (The list of lasting German satires may be short, but that is true of the satire of any country.) The thing is, probably anybody who wrote effective satire would say that it is generally true of most readers of any nationality that they don't get satire. Satire isn't written for readers to congratulate themselves for getting it. The best satire is written to persuade the undecided and to appeal to the reason and the conscience of those being satirized. It is anti-complacency, and self-congratulation is a complacent response. Satire goes under the radar at its target. In extraordinary circumstances it raises a ruckus and gets things accomplished in the real world, and the incomprehension of some of the most important readers is integral to that in that it gives the persuaded readers a focus. Genius satire can continue to delight and upset long after its original issues are dead. At a time when a composition class (this may still be true) without "A Modest Proposal" was unthinkable, I had a friend get in trouble for teaching it, all because of one student who didn't get it.