From the LGF Archives:
75 Charles Fri, May 23, 2003 11:28:07am
Caton is right; I would prefer for the abortion argument not to happen here.
258 Charles Tue, Oct 12, 2004 10:48:07am
On the subject of abortion: I do not have a hard and fast rule about not discussing it. However, this topic is a very good example of why I prefer people to avoid the subject — because it inevitably causes hard feelings and vicious fights, among people who are otherwise on the same side, and nobody’s opinion ever changes.
There are plenty of forums on the internet where you can argue about abortion if that’s what you want. I’d prefer to focus elsewhere.
642 Charles Sun, Feb 13, 2005 2:53:55pm
Freedom Fan: I don’t have a specific policy on discussing abortion. I just know from years and years of debating the issue that: 1) there’s nothing left to say on either side, and 2) the debate invariably escalates into personal attacks, rapidly.
I’ve requested in the past that we refrain from bringing this issue into LGF, because of these reasons.
224 Charles Thu, May 5, 2005 10:56:19am
There’s no hard and fast rule about which topics can or can’t be discussed here. I’ve said before (and still feel) that arguments about abortion invariably escalate instantaneously to the point of nuclear fusion, and that I’d prefer (just for my own sanity) that if people can’t refrain from the issue, at least try to avoid meltdown and keep things reasonably civil.
And the same goes for homosexuality; I have nothing against discussing it, but if the tone veers into gay-bashing, then I have a problem because we have quite a few valued commenters here who are gay, and if it comes down to losing a gay-basher versus losing an intelligent commenter — well…
So no — there’s no taboo and you won’t get banned for talking about any subject. Just try to remember that there are people behind all these internet text blocks.
1024 Charles Mon, Oct 31, 2005 1:21:56pm
Sheesh. More than a thousand comments in less than seven hours? What the heck happened in here?
Oh, I see. Abortion again.
889 Charles Sat, Nov 4, 2006 8:09:39am
realwest: I actually don’t have a “policy” about discussing abortion, in the sense of a hard and fast rule. But I’d prefer that people don’t argue about it here, because it inevitably leads to the internet equivalent of a screaming match, and we have enough of those already. There are plenty of other places on the web where you can have that argument…
706 Charles Sat, Mar 24, 2007 3:56:28pm
Re: the scary abortion subject.
There’s no outright ban on abortion discussions. But after years of trouble and strife, I’ve learned that this topic invariably deteriorates very quickly into a flame war.
There are literally thousands of places on the web where you can get into a flame war about Roe v. Wade, if that’s what you really want to do. I’d prefer that LGF not be one of them.
172 Charles Fri, May 4, 2007 5:00:52pm
I should have known better than to try to ask a tech question in the middle of an abortion argument.
56 Charles Sat, Sep 22, 2007 6:25:56pm
And I really do not appreciate the effort to divert this important topic into another argument about abortion.
59 Charles Sat, Sep 22, 2007 6:26:57pm
re: #57 Killgore Trout
re: #52 cbinfluxI just turned it on a few days ago. Might turn it off again. Looks like we’re headed for an abortion fight on a friday night. This could get ugly.
There isn’t going to be an abortion fight, because I’m not going to allow it.
3 Charles Mon, Oct 8, 2007 6:34:56pm
re: #1 zombie
Dobson. Ay Caramba.
Well, we had an abortion discussion in an open thread a couple of days ago, and it was actually pretty sane, so I’m hoping this one won’t turn into a total meltdown.
I know, I’m an optimist.
427 Charles Fri, Oct 26, 2007 7:47:09pm
re: #411 Caliredst8r
How did “abortion” get into this discussion? Please take your agenda somewhere else.
Yeah, let’s keep the topic of abortion off of Little Green Footballs because it’s so inflammatory.
Charles, remember when you had “Crunchy Parts?” Nobody here does either. Go figure.
What I find ironic is that Charles F. Johnson is essentially defending Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, an undisputed racist and an adherent to the ethnic cleansing tenets of the eugenics movement. These tenets of racial purity were supported by Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and many others of her time.
Sanger’s stated mission was to promote birth control and sterilization of blacks and other non-white people to limit the populations of those deemed to be inferior.
What’s also ironic was that Margaret Sanger was against abortion as a prophylactic. It wasn’t until her death in 1966 that Planned Parenthood took off their masks and began promoting abortion as a simple medical procedure with no regard to the sanctity of human life.
Yet Charles F. Johnson claims he’s not a racist.