The hits keep coming: Disabled kids are god's punishment

[Quinn]

I have a disabled kid, and I've never had an abortion. Why did god punish my son?

[Christian logic]
The question you should be asking isn't "Why did God punish my son?", but rather, "Why are there any children born that God doesn't punish?". We are all wretched unworthy sinners, deserving of any punishment He could inflict upon us. Therefore the fact that any children are born healthy at all, or that anyone ever experiences anything other than abject suffering, is evidence of His divine mercy and love. So quit whining about your disabled kid when He's already given you way more than you deserve by allowing you so much as a single relatively happy day on His glorious creation! Now get down on your knees and thank Him for the great mercy He has shown you by not torturing you every minute of your life, you prideful harlot!
[/Christian logic]

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Atheism.

I wasn't an atheist when Jared was born. I was actually attending a church, albeit a very liberal Christian church (they let gays in!). Perhaps that's the reason.

 

[theprestige]

If one claims that one was misquoted in a televised press conference (even one three years ago), then wouldn't the thing to do be get a copy of the televised press conference and show it to one's detractors? Even if the TV stations do not have it, wouldn't an elected official keep copies of these press conferences to avoid this exact situation?

If one claims that something was said at a press conference (even one three years ago), doesn't one have the burden of proof to produce the actual footage or transcript of the press conference, to support one's claim?

What's funny is that I can find a number of sites reporting that the alleged press conference happened "last Thursday" (which would be September 6). See, for example, the OP's source.

But none of these reports actually provide any supporting evidence that such a press conference took place on that date. No links are provided, no footage is played, no transcript is to be found. Just this one report, parroting this one snippet of information, scattered around the web. Even the Wikipedia entry for the Delegate repeats the canard, but doesn't include a citation.

None of the versions of the report that I found could even be bothered to source it in any useful way.

So what, exactly, is the problem? The alleged press conference from September 6, 2012 has left no trace of itself, other than this one poorly-sourced report. The allegations in the report have been repudiated by the Delegate's wife, on his official site. Supposedly the conference in question actually happened three years ago, but nobody has even provided a source for that.

So what are we to make of the OP? It seems to have been poorly researched, and to have woefully misplaced the burden of proof. It's great for supporting a preconceived notion, but not so much for telling us what really happened.

 

[A'isha]

So what, exactly, is the problem? The alleged press conference from September 6, 2012 has left no trace of itself, other than this one poorly-sourced report. The allegations in the report have been repudiated by the Delegate's wife, on his official site. Supposedly the conference in question actually happened three years ago, but nobody has even provided a source for that.

The delegate's wife acknowledges on his official site that the press conference took place, that the delegate talked about how first pregnancy abortions can cause "medical problems" for subsequent children, and that the delegate used the words "nature's vengeance" to describe the reason for this.

 

[mikedenk]

Is Bob Marshall going to be the next Todd Akin?

Marshall's Statement on the allegations

He denies using the phrase and directs readers to his website which contains video of his speeches.

However, he does admit to using the terms “Nature’s vengeance” or “punishment". He also states: "I made reference to an October, 2007 study from the Journal of Reproductive Medicine which presented findings from 59 English Language studies that induced abortion in the US is a direct cause of 31.5% of all Cerebral Palsy cases in the US, an excess of 22,917 early pre term births which result in 1,096 excess cases of Cerebral Palsy and a cost of $1.2 billion."

 

[MattusMaximus]

Is Bob Marshall going to be the next Todd Akin?

Marshall's Statement on the allegations

He denies using the phrase and directs readers to his website which contains video of the speech in question.

However, he does admit to using the terms “Nature’s vengeance” or “punishment". He also states: "I made reference to an October, 2007 study from the Journal of Reproductive Medicine which presented findings from 59 English Language studies that induced abortion in the US is a direct cause of 31.5% of all Cerebral Palsy cases in the US, an excess of 22,917 early pre term births which result in 1,096 excess cases of Cerebral Palsy and a cost of $1.2 billion."

Hole... being... dug... deeper...

 

[Travis]

You know what is weird? I know a lot of Republicans personally. None of them are as crazy as the people that get elected to office as Republicans.

What is up with this?

 

[Quinn]

You know what is weird? I know a lot of Republicans personally. None of them are as crazy as the people that get elected to office as Republicans.

What is up with this?

Wild guess: you tend to avoid hanging out with obvious freakopaths?

 

[DavidJames]

You know what is weird? I know a lot of Republicans personally. None of them are as crazy as the people that get elected to office as Republicans.

What is up with this?

Perhaps it's your location and social life. In the state of my birth, where I visit regularly my current state, I know plenty who support the crazies. FWIW, I hang out with a lot of people who regularly go to church.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

What's funny is that I can find a number of sites reporting that the alleged press conference happened "last Thursday" (which would be September 6). See, for example, the OP's source.

But none of these reports actually provide any supporting evidence that such a press conference took place on that date. No links are provided, no footage is played, no transcript is to be found. Just this one report, parroting this one snippet of information, scattered around the web. Even the Wikipedia entry for the Delegate repeats the canard, but doesn't include a citation.

None of the versions of the report that I found could even be bothered to source it in any useful way.

So what, exactly, is the problem? The alleged press conference from September 6, 2012 has left no trace of itself, other than this one poorly-sourced report. The allegations in the report have been repudiated by the Delegate's wife, on his official site. Supposedly the conference in question actually happened three years ago, but nobody has even provided a source for that.

So what are we to make of the OP? It seems to have been poorly researched, and to have woefully misplaced the burden of proof. It's great for supporting a preconceived notion, but not so much for telling us what really happened.

It's actually a two year old story. I thought the quote sounded familiar. There may even be an old forum thread on it.

From Wiki:

Marshall was the subject of controversy in February 2010, when he made a statement regarding disabled children at a press conference to oppose state funding of Planned Parenthood:
“ The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children... In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest.[18]

ETA: there is an old thread and I started it! http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168001

 

[theprestige]

The delegate's wife acknowledges on his official site that the press conference took place, that the delegate talked about how first pregnancy abortions can cause "medical problems" for subsequent children, and that the delegate used the words "nature's vengeance" to describe the reason for this.

The delegate's wife acknowledges that a press conference took place. Three years ago. Don't you find it weird that none of the sources reporting on this story seem to be aware of this? Don't you find it weird that all of them think it happened a week and a half ago, but there's no trace of any such press conference a week and a half ago?

None of these sources are actually reporting any facts, they're just repeating a single juicy tidbit they can't be bothered to verify or even source.

As to whether he's wrong on the science? Apparently there's some debate on that subject:

http://afterabortion.org/1990/abortion-complications/
http://www.kltv.com/story/10620390/medical-abortions-increase-risk-of-future-pregnancy-complications
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/abortion/AN00633
http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/f/abortion.htm

He may be wrong, but it looks like his view isn't that far removed from the current medical orthodoxy.

And the words "nature's vengeance"? People anthropomorphize nature all the time. It's hardly the height of extremism to use such a figure of speech.

Anyway, the burden of proof is still on the reporter, to cite facts and evidence for their report. Where's the "press conference" that happened "last Thursday"? Where's the footage? Where's the transcript? The people reporting this should be ashamed of themselves. And so should the people gobbling it up because it fits their circular preconceived notions.

 

[theprestige]

Hole... being... dug... deeper...

Deeper how?

Here's the article he's referencing:

http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/toc/auto_abstract.php?id=23283

Is it a bad article? A bad journal? Do you dispute the findings?

 

[theprestige]

It's actually a two year old story. I thought the quote sounded familiar. There may even be an old forum thread on it.

That's one of the points I'm trying to make:

The OP's source is dated "Monday - 9/10/2012, 5:22pm ET". That's last week.

From Wiki:

I've been to the wiki; its source for that quote is a two year-old copypasta of the same story. And that two year old version, being identical to the one being passed around now has the same problems in lack of supporting evidence. It was poorly written then, and it's poorly written now--the more so for being reproduced so uncritically.

ETA: there is an old thread and I started it! http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168001

Ugh. No thanks. One thread on this story is enough for me!

 

[Lisa Simpson]

You seem surprised that the internets are spreading around a two year old story.

BTW, he gave a non-apology apology at the time. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6232759-503544.html

"No one who knows me or my record would imagine that I believe or intended to communicate such an offensive notion," he wrote. "I have devoted a generation of work to defending disabled and unwanted children, and have always maintained that they are special blessings to their parents. Nevertheless, I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families."

 

[Ausmerican]

I have a disabled kid, and I've never had an abortion. Why did god punish my son?

I, for one, am going to break with tradition and very pointedly NOT blame Lisa in this instance.

 

[theprestige]

You seem surprised that the internets are spreading around a two year old story.

I was on /b/, back when /b/ was good. Nothing the Internet does surprises me.

In fact, nothing in this sordid thread surprises me. The emotion I'm apparently failing to convey is "annoyance".

But we're not talking about "the Internet". Take the OP's source, for example. That's not "the Internet". That's wtop.com, the web page for a local news radio station in Prince William County. That's people. That's specific people, with integrity, or not. Who think critically, or not. That's a person who chose, last week, to present this story, as-is. And it's a weak story. An old, weak story. And somebody--not "the Internet", but an actual human being--decided to carry it.

Take the OP, for another example. That's not "the Internet". That's our very own LarianLeQuella. I assume they're a real person, who has integrity or not, who thinks critically or not. "The Internet" didn't start this thread. A person started this thread. About an old, weak story.

So leave the Internet out of it. The Internet can take care of itself. Let's talk about the quality of the story, and the reasoning behind its acceptance and approval--assuming there is any.

BTW, he gave a non-apology apology at the time. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6232759-503544.html

Given the feeble and threadbare nature of the meme in question, I'm not at all convinced he said anything that actually requires an apology. So I'm thinking his non-apology is a virtue, not a vice. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Lisa Simpson]

He admitted to saying it. It is incredibly offensive thing to say. Of course he should have really apologized, but I know better than to expect that from a politician.

 

[Ladewig]

If one claims that something was said at a press conference (even one three years ago), doesn't one have the burden of proof to produce the actual footage or transcript of the press conference, to support one's claim?

What's funny is that I can find a number of sites reporting that the alleged press conference happened "last Thursday" (which would be September 6). See, for example, the OP's source.

But none of these reports actually provide any supporting evidence that such a press conference took place on that date. No links are provided, no footage is played, no transcript is to be found. Just this one report, parroting this one snippet of information, scattered around the web. Even the Wikipedia entry for the Delegate repeats the canard, but doesn't include a citation.

None of the versions of the report that I found could even be bothered to source it in any useful way.

So what, exactly, is the problem? The alleged press conference from September 6, 2012 has left no trace of itself, other than this one poorly-sourced report. The allegations in the report have been repudiated by the Delegate's wife, on his official site. Supposedly the conference in question actually happened three years ago, but nobody has even provided a source for that.

So what are we to make of the OP? It seems to have been poorly researched, and to have woefully misplaced the burden of proof. It's great for supporting a preconceived notion, but not so much for telling us what really happened.

I agree that the burden of proof is on the reporter. You are unwaveringly correct on that. The point I was trying to make is that given how often people misquote politicians (intentionally or accidentally), someone in elected office these days should be keeping copies of all the press releases and all the televised appearances.

 

[theprestige]

He admitted to saying it. It is incredibly offensive thing to say. Of course he should have really apologized, but I know better than to expect that from a politician.

What, exactly, do you understand that he admitted?

And what, exactly, is the part you find offensive? The part where he cites science? The part where he anthropomorphizes nature with a figure of speech? The part where he puts it in the context of his religious beliefs?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have a disabled kid, and I've never had an abortion. Why did god punish my son?

Well a clear possibility would be a previous miscarriage(spontaneous abortion ) that their god knows was your fault.