Discussion about this post

User's avatar
thixotropic jerk's avatar

Right.

In an article about a woman condemned to DIE you need to make your point -that you admit is irrelevant to the topic- that she shouldn’t have as many children as she did.

And you don’t expect to come across as crass because *checks notes* you’re filled with “an overwhelming urge to save the planet” and you already stated your “take” on her situation in a previous post?

Interesting process…

I’m not condemning you or your point I actually am sympathetic to it.

I just maybe don’t think it’s appropriate to make it here, no matter that it is specifically worded, with caveats, and a desire not to offend “unnecessarily” (lol) —or not— in a forum where the discussion is about how an innocent woman’s life hangs in the balance, not her lack of birth control.

If, however, your perspective is to double down on your “hey I don’t think you should be executed but I also think you should have made better reproductive choices -if you could have” statement, then I guess you’ll have to come at me for having the audacity to observe that you’re weakening your compassionate argument a wee bit there with your judgement of her life choices.

But sure, I should stay mute so you can avoid hearing how your bold thoughts on overpopulation are, despite your best efforts, still managing to come across as unkind at a minimum and rather offensive at a maximum in this context.

Expand full comment
Princess Erika the Radiant's avatar

McVeigh ended up waiving his appeals

The law is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act - one of the more toxic legacies of the Gingrich-Clinton Era (was a bipartisan bit of terrible legislation)

Expand full comment
359 more comments...

No posts