Liberal Ethics: If It’s OK to Kill Babies, Why Is It Wrong to Molest Children?

Posted on | January 10, 2013 | 25 Comments

Not an entirely moot question, now that the former executive director of a pro-abortion group has been busted in a sex sting operation:

Scott Richard Swirling, 61, thought he was discussing plans to meet a District man who was offering to let him have sex with his preteen daughter, authorities said.
It turns out Swirling was dealing with an undercover D.C. police officer.
Swirling, of Gaithersburg, was arrested Tuesday and charged with traveling across state lines to engage in illicit sexual conduct, a crime which carries a penalty of up to 30 years. . . .
Swirling answered an online advertisement on Monday that had been placed by a task force made up of D.C. police officers and FBI agents.
The detective wrote that he was a “taboo dad” with a “12-year-old girl, very perverted.”
Swirling, using the screen name “squiggles 12353,” responded, “Kindered [sic] spirts.”
Over several hours, the two men traded emails discussing their interests in underage girls and traded photos of young girls, including that of the detective’s purported 12-year-old daughter.

Swirling was once executve director of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association. Life News reports:

Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, responded, “Nobody should be surprised that people who advocate the murder of children would be involved in the sexual abuse of children.”

Swirling may be a pervert, but because he is a pro-choice pervert, he’s still a liberal in good standing.

Category: Abortion, Crime, Sex

Comments

25 Responses to “Liberal Ethics: If It’s OK to Kill Babies, Why Is It Wrong to Molest Children?”

K-Bob
January 10th, 2013 @ 6:46 pm

Something has to be broken in the minds of people who can become aroused by children. Like murder and other horrific acts, there’s some missing boundary line in their minds that normal people have, and simply cannot cross.

I’m curious whether doctors of psychiatric researchers have come up with anything at all resembling a cure.

Also, although I’m rarely upset at the outcome of these entrapment schemes (because I’m glad they act as magnest to attract the sickos, and thus prevent them from committing further crimes), I’ve never looked into the “authority to entrap” issue. Anyone here know much about that?
John
January 10th, 2013 @ 8:32 pm

This will be the next liberal battleground in its war against the church…the sexualization of children. Roman Polanski was just ahead of his time.
WJJ Hoge
January 10th, 2013 @ 9:34 pm

Liberal Ethics is an oxymoron.
K-Bob
January 10th, 2013 @ 11:01 pm

O/T: I’ll just bet that every one of you thought this would be a great time for Obama to host a Climate Summit!.
Cheesecake
January 10th, 2013 @ 11:29 pm

To Liberals, you’re not human until you can vote Democrat.
John Scotus
January 10th, 2013 @ 11:38 pm

Obviously, he doesn’t think it is wrong to molest children. Some libs would no doubt applaud him for moral consistency and open-mindedness, though most will hide behind their own hypocrisy and heap abuse on him.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
January 11th, 2013 @ 12:55 am

You are all so judgmental. You can only be judgmental if you are judging someone who is conservative. Duh!
Proof
January 11th, 2013 @ 1:03 am

“Situational ethics” is like having a rubber ruler. How long would you like it to be?
Thomas L. Knapp
January 11th, 2013 @ 6:53 am

Well, the first problem I see with it is that in most cases, the people are charged with trying to have sex with either:

1) A minor who doesn’t exist, or

2) An adult pretending to be a minor.

It’s like handing out a speeding ticket to someone who didn’t actually get in his non-existent car and go 129mph in a 70mph zone, but merely admitted that he WANTS to own a Ferrari and drive it real fast.

The second problem is that since child porn prohibition laws include “fictional depictions,” the entrappers themselves would seem to be guilty of producing/promoting child pornography to the extent that they pretend to be minors while engaging in sexually explicit chat with their targets.

It might be a better idea for law enforcement to investigate actual crimes with actual victims instead of just making shit up for cheap publicity opportunities.
Molest Children or Kill Babies? To Liberals It’s All Good. | ZION'S TRUMPET
January 11th, 2013 @ 7:53 am

[…] Liberal Ethics: If It’s OK to Kill Babies, Why Is It Wrong to Molest Children? […]
Bob Belvedere
January 11th, 2013 @ 7:59 am

They’ll heap, but they won’t mean it.
Bob Belvedere
January 11th, 2013 @ 8:00 am

That’s the question I used to ask the gals before I hypnotized ’em.
Bob Belvedere
January 11th, 2013 @ 8:09 am

Who can be surprised by this at all?

To be a Leftist is to reject any standards, any Absolute Truths. Therefore, everything is, ultimately, permissible. Like their wish to eliminate national boundaries, Leftists want to eliminate all behavioral ones.

Now, the more cunning of them know that they cannot do this right away, so they lie in wait for their opportunities. Read their writings: they advocate incrementalism.

Once again, we have proof that Justice Scalia was right in Lawrence v Texas.
DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Liberal Ethics: If It’s OK to Kill Babies, Why Is It Wrong to Molest Children?
January 11th, 2013 @ 8:19 am

[…] The Other McCain is on the case. Scott Richard Swirling, 61, thought he was discussing plans to meet a District man who was offering to let him have sex with his preteen daughter, authorities said. […]
K-Bob
January 11th, 2013 @ 8:27 am

Yeah, I see the problems, but I’m looking more for the legal basis.

Related to this is something I read years ago. A Science Fiction writer of a libertarian bent had great suspicion that the concept of “kiddie porn” was more myth than fact. (Mind, this was back when the only pics on the internet were ASCII art.)

So he set about doing research, where he went to the only known porn shops in various towns, and asked the shop owners in various ways if they had any such materials. Basically, the only data he got was that he was lucky they didn’t kick his ass. Several reached for baseball bats.

I assume now that the data is different, since anyone can get on the web now. But back then, I wonder if he was right.
robertstacymccain
January 11th, 2013 @ 8:39 am

TK, I share in a general way your concerns about the entrapment factor involved in “sting” operations. There is a real problem, however, in the online culture of anonymity within which predatory pedophilles seek to hide. At the point when someone shows themselves so interested in child sex that they are willing to meet a stranger with the expectation of such an encounter, it is difficult to argue that the person caught by this “sting” is not a menace to public safety. We are therefore required to balance in our minds two values: a practical concern for public safety and an abstract commitment to the “rights” ideology.
Bear in mind that these sting operations quite routinely result in the arrest of individuals who turn out to have thousands of child-porn imagies or videos on their computers, so that such arrests tend to reduce both the supply of, and the demand for, this dreadful commodity. By busting the very worst of them — and someone like Swirling, who would agree to a meeting like this, is obviously quite bad indeed — law enforcement destroys the key nodes in the network, and intimidates other would-be lawbreakers.
Frankly, I’d much rather have cops busting perverts in Internet chat rooms than sitting by the side of the highway doing radar speed-traps. From my own narrow perspective, the fewer cops doing speed-limit enforcement, the better.
The Naked Face Of Leftism: Pedophilia Unbound « The Camp Of The Saints
January 11th, 2013 @ 8:41 am

[…] the title of his post on this, Stacy merely follows Leftist logic: Liberal Ethics: If It’s OK to Kill Babies, Why Is It […]
Thomas L. Knapp
January 11th, 2013 @ 9:10 am

Stacy,

I doubt that the enforcement activities you describe do actually reduce supply/demand to any measurable degree. But I think we’d agree that that doesn’t particularly matter — people who victimize kids need to be stopped, whether the stoppage makes a “measurable difference” or not.

But in the “balance” you describe, I lean toward having law enforcement do the actual work of catching actual criminals in the actual attempted commission of actual crimes, instead of faking it up and then patting themselves on the back for having “prevented” a crime that could never have occurred because the alleged victim never existed.
Thomas L. Knapp
January 11th, 2013 @ 9:11 am

K-Bob,

I tend to assume that child porn is sort of like terrorism: It does actually exist and it is actually bad, but much or even most of it is faked up prospective stuff rather than the real thing, created by “law enforcement” to make themselves look “effective.”
Garym
January 11th, 2013 @ 10:27 am

Hee Hee!
Fritz Katz
January 11th, 2013 @ 10:40 am

CNN spent hours yesterday excoriating Rush for telling the truth (so what else is new?).

CNN: (bouncy music) Rush Limbaugh is speaking out against what he calls a — a liberal attempt to normalize pedophilia. (snorts) The conservative radio host says it could be the next step for those who support gay marriage. Limbaugh cited a column in the UK’s Guardian newspaper that quotes academic researchers who claim pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, and Limbaugh says the media went easy on Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash who lost his job on Sesame Street after several men came forward saying they had sexual relationships with Clash when they were teenagers.

Now the left has won gay marriage, sex with children is the next agenda.
richard mcenroe
January 11th, 2013 @ 10:41 am

It does actually exist, it is actually bad, and it is trying to expand its market share. KP ads are springing up now on even “mainstream” porn sites.
richard mcenroe
January 11th, 2013 @ 4:04 pm

By the time they show up for these arranged stings, they’ve committed the pervert equivalent of busting into a liquor store waving a Tec-9 and screaming “Nobody move!” At that point, whether they get the goods or not is pretty much irrelevant.
K-Bob
January 12th, 2013 @ 2:52 am

Maybe so. I will say this, *never* search for pictures of “Boyz to Men” without the ‘z’, or with safe search off.
Progressive Mindset: If It’s OK to Kill Babies, Why Is It Wrong to Molest Children? | Grumpy Opinions
January 14th, 2013 @ 8:31 am

[…] THE OTHER MCCAIN Not an entirely moot question, now that the former executive director of a pro-abortion group has been busted in a sex sting operation: […]