The Abortion's Not What Leapt Out at Me

Stephen Tyler and his 14 year old girlfriend.

Sorry, I was so disturbed I forgot the trigger warning: child molestation/rape. Enjoy this completely ethical otter instead. Really, seriously sorry about that.

So, mommylife (whom I cannot link to because that page makes my antivirus software go into such a fit, it crashes my chrome) has this post up about the affects of abortion on the fathers:

Long before he won accolades as an American Idol judge, Steven Tyler was a bona-fide rock star, with all that that implied. In 1975, when he was in his late 20s and the lead singer for the band Aerosmith, Tyler persuaded the parents of his 14-year-old girlfriend, Julia Holcomb, to make him her legal guardian so that they could live together in Boston.

When Miss Holcomb and Tyler conceived a child, his longtime friend Ray Tabano convinced Tyler that abortion was the only solution. In the Aerosmith "autobiography," Walk This Way (in which recollections by all the band members, and their friends and lovers, were assembled by the author Stephen Davis), Tabano says: "So they had the abortion, and it really messed Steven up because it was a boy. He . . . saw the whole thing and it [messed] him up big time."

Tyler also reflects on his abortion experience in the autobiography. "It was a big crisis. It's a major thing when you're growing something with a woman, but they convinced us that it would never work out and would ruin our lives. . . . You go to the doctor and they put the needle in her belly and they squeeze the stuff in and you watch. And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated. In my mind, I'm going, Jesus, what have I done?"

Read more at National Review Online

You know, Barbara may be all sympathic to Stephen's feelings, but you know what stuck out for me? This:

In 1975, when he was in his late 20s and the lead singer for the band Aerosmith, Tyler persuaded the parents of his 14-year-old girlfriend, Julia Holcomb, to make him her legal guardian so that they could live together in Boston

Um . . . Barbara, what part of that doesn't make your skin crawl? You are the mother of multiple daughters and the fact that Stephen Tyler was at least 28 and having sex with raping* a 14 year old, over whom he had legal guardianship, does not bother you? Really? You are disgusting! Almost as disgusting as Stephen himself, not to mention the girl's parents. (I did not fail to copy any part of her post wherein she expresses even the smallest degree of discomfort with this. I may be the Empress of Snarktastica, but I am fair.)

So, anyway, what about the abortion? Well, were I Stephen's friend at that point (leaving aside that I would have called the cops when I found out he was raping a 14 year old), I would have recommended an abortion, too, for two reasons:

1. This child was in an inherently abusive relationship with a grown man. Further tying herself to him with a baby would only make matters worse.

2. Stephen's proven that he likes to rape children. Does anyone here feel comfortable with him having children, because I don't. Sure, maybe the incest thing would hold him back, but who wants to take that chance? Barbara, apparently.

So, no, I don't have a problem with an abortion in this case. At all. Not that I ever have a problem with someone else's choice to do with their body as they please, but in this case, huzzah!

Just as a side note, Stephen Tyler is why my husband and I stopped watching American Idol this year. (What? He's launching his career as a performing artist this year- please participate!- so it's basically research.) After the second time Stephen blatantly hit on an underage girl, my husband turns to me and says, "That was skeevy, right? I mean, you saw that, too?"

I said, "Yeah, that . . . makes me uncomfortable, too."

He said, "I would feel skeevy hitting on a 20 year old, and I'm at least half Stephen Tyler's age. That girl was 16, I have nieces older than that!"

I said, "Yeah, I know. So, no more American Idol?"

He said, "Never again."

Seriously, people, I was never a big Aerosmith fan, but this puts the entire catalogue in a new light. Was Janie pointing her gun at Stephen? Was it a 9 year old driving him crazy? Ew.

*He's a minimum of 28, she's 14. There cannot be consent in that situation. I'm calling it what it is.

But You Already Knew That, I'm Sure

Attorneys for nearly 150 people who claim sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests made nearly 10,000 pages of previously sealed internal church documents public Sunday . . .

I can't say these documents reveal facts that I find surprising, but the tone of some of the letters is disturbing to say the least.

"In early August 1963, Father was placed under arrest by the civil police of the City of San Diego for violation of the State Penal Code," then-Bishop Charles F. Buddy wrote the Colombian bishop in the Diocese of Cali. "At that time, arrangements were made between this Chancery and the civil authorities of San Diego in which, if Father left the United States with the promise never to return, the charges against Father would be set aside by Civil Law."

How would solve anything? They simply moved him to a different parish, a parish that presumably also had children in it, unless Columbia was devoid of children in the mid 60s. Oh, wait, the aim of the Church wasn't to protect children, it was to protect itself.

Church files indicate he also served in Florida and Texas before arriving in the San Diego diocese, where he worked with migrant workers in the Coachella Valley about 150 miles southeast of Los Angeles.

"You have won a reputation as a zealous worker and devoted to the poor," Bishop Buddy wrote the priest in a December 1962 letter.

"On the other hand, the 'incidents' at Indio were more serious than first presented to me, especially inasmuch as the police have made a record of them. You know how word gets around, so that you be certain that the police here will be on your trail. ... It will be more prudent and more secure for you to return to your own diocese."

You know how word gets around?! That's the issue? Not that children were molested, their entire lives scarred by the actions of a monster, but word, it'll get around. And that's what's important here. Children? Unless they're in the womb, fuck 'em. Literally. Feel free. The Church will hide you. So as not to make a fuss.

Another case outlined in the files involves the Rev. Robert Nikliborc, who was sent to a psychiatric treatment facility in the 1950s after the diocese received complaints, then became director of a Roman Catholic residential facility for troubled boys called Boystown of the Desert in Banning, Calif.

I'm trying to imagine the Church's decision making process here. "Hmmm, we have a residential facility for troubled boys, who should we put in charge? Oh, I know! The known pedophile. Nothing can go wrong there!"

The papers also contain documents from the files of Rev. Anthony Rodrigue. In 1976, a group of parents at Rodrigue's parish in Heber, Calif., complained he had molested their children, according to court documents.

The priest was sent to a psychiatric facility in Massachusetts for treatment but was put back in ministry despite the recommendations of those who treated him.

Really, the only conclusion one can draw at this point, from the Church's actions, is that the Catholic Church is an organization devoted to giving pedophiles endless access to children to molest and then protect them from any consequences.

And the faithful pay for it. Lovely. They should just be honest with themselves and start giving cash to pedophiles directly. Cut out the middleman.

Roman Polanski =/= a Priest

roman polanski, pedophile, pedophilia, catholic, church, christian, persecution, priest,
At first glance, mathew archbold's whinge that Roman Polanski proves our persecution against Christians seems reasonable.

Just for a moment I want you to imagine that Roman Polanski was a priest. Frightening, yes?

But for the sake of my point imagine that he's a priest who drugged and raped a thirteen year old.

Imagine he's a priest who fled to France so as to avoid punishment for his crime. Imagine that he flaunted his freedom in America's face for decades.Now imagine that Roman Polanski as a priest was apprehended by the police after all those years. Now, imagine what the media would be saying.

There's one little problem with this: the Catholic Church demands that we view, and treat, priests differently from producers (and everyone else on the planet).

Priests are special, we are told. Priests hold special moral authority, directly from God, we are told. Priests are better than the rest of us, which is what allows priests to teach us, admonish us and absolve us of sins. (I grew up Catholic before all the scandals. This is exactly how Catholics used to view priests.)

You can't have it both ways, my dear mathew. Either priests are special, which makes their crimes special, or they're not special, don't have the ear of God and don't have the right to tell anyone anything. You can't stand there and tell me that I'm not a good person because I voted for Obama, and then turn around and say, "but Roman Polanski did it, too!"

He Brought a Pedophile to Church

pedophilia, pedophile, porn, pornography, church, modesty, religion, christian, stupid,

and then complained that the women weren't dressed modestly enough.

Oh, wait, I just threw you to the end of my rant, so that may not make any sense.

From the beginning:

Sunday's Breast by Mike Adams

Last Sunday, I took a couple of guests to church. I just met Lisa back in March. But I’ve known her husband David for fifteen years – ever since he took my “intro” class at UNC-Wilmington. David just pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography. In all likelihood, he’ll soon be sentenced to eight years in federal prison.

catch that? Mr. Adams took a guy who's into kiddie porn to church with him. KIDDIE PORN. Is there anything lower than that? Anything at all? As it turns out, yes.

But last Sunday at church I was slightly embarrassed in front of my guests. "in front of", not "because of" The source of my embarrassment was all of the women who came to the service dressed like they had been out at a bar. A lot of these women know that they can meet higher quality men at church than at a bar. But some don’t have enough sense to change clothes after making the transition from a bar to a church sanctuary.

So, you attended a church service with a man who enjoys CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, is going to prison for CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, but what really embarrassed you was women in sexy clothing? Really? Did the children in the pornography ask for it, too?

One of the worst offenders was seated one row in front of us. She wasn’t like all of the other women who were content merely to show their breasts. I know, right, women having breasts and not wearing hijab to cover them up. It's terrible. Worse, in fact, than kiddi porn. She had to wear a dress that was thin enough to let the whole congregation know she wears thong underwear. (a) you don't have to look (b) let me share a little secret with you, Mr. Adams. I've worn dresses that thin in public, too, and not on purpose. They looked fine at the store, fine in my bathroom when I put them on, then BAM naked in public. sunlight is a bitch. trust me, boyshorts instead of thongs don't make that situation any better. and it's still not worse than your kiddie porn loving friend. It was even more disturbing than the 13-year olds who wear torn Daisy Dukes instead of wearing a bra. does Mr. Adams know what daisy dukes are? i mean, you can't wear daisy dukes instead of a bra. they don't go on the same body part. oh, and blame the parents, there, bud. my mother wouldn't have let me wear short shorts to church.

When women come to church dressed like this they seldom stop to think that a recovering sex addict might be in the congregation. And they seldom stop to think that there are married men in the congregation who are struggling with lust issues. The church should be a place where men can come to seek help as they battle these temptations. It’s a shame that some of the temptations are following them into the church and pulling up a chair right beside them.

Mr. Adams, you know who likes child pornography? Pedophiles. You brought a pedophile into a church- a place guaranteed to be filled with children. Children should be safe in a church. The attendees of said church shouldn't have to worry that fellow congregants are bringing pedophiles to church, that a pedophile might pull a chair right beside their children. What you did, in bringing a pedophile, a known pedophile, to a church, is obscene. If I attended that church, I would demand that you not be allowed back, with or without your pet pedophile.

Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with some people?