The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “abortion”

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 11: Her Support of “Women’s Automony” Means Death To Millions Of Unborn Girls

They call it “gendercide”.  The deliberate killing of an unborn child based on its gender.  In the vast majority of cases that gender is female.  The House of Representatives tried, but failed, to pass a law that would have outlawed this type of abortion.  However, Democrats, virtually all of whom are pro-abortion on demand, blocked passage of the law.  Naturally, all pro-abortion liberal feminists are giddy with sadistic delight over this, including Michelle Goldberg who writes:

Sex-selective abortion is odious. Banning it means allowing the government to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.”

In other words, so far as “woman’s autonomy” goes, and just how far Michelle Goldberg and all her liberal, pro-abortion feminist ilk are willing to go to preserve that “autonomy, Goldberg, like all pro-abortion liberal feminists, believes the killing of an unborn girl “constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate her pregnancy”.  Goldberg believes abortion on demand, for any reason a woman might dream up, during any time she is pregnant, including up until the very due date, the very moment the baby is about to pop its head out, (crowning) is acceptable enough time to still kill the child before it is legally and technically born.

Goldberg uses an excuse to deflect attention away from this heinous and despicable type of abortion by reminding us that most “gendercide” abortions occur in Asia, in China and India, and are not that common in America.

Reporting on sex-selective abortion in India, where feminists campaign against kanya bhronn hatya—literally, “the killing of young girls”—and patriarchs angrily assert their right to plan their families, I sometimes felt like I’d stepped through a looking glass. Clearly, the American anti-abortion movement would be happy to frame the debate in similar terms.”

We only frame the debate on abortion in one term – the killing of innocent life.  While Goldberg works to protect “woman’s autonomy” over her body by fighting for greater legal protections for woman and girls of all ages to have guaranteed rights to abortion whenever they want, we who are pro-life fight for greater legal protections for the unborn from those women and girls who would seek to end their pregnancies based upon the viscous lies of Michelle Goldberg, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, Cecile Richards, Terri O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, and all liberal pro-abortion feminists.  Their lies have caused the deaths of scores of millions of unborn children over the decades, and over 100 millions unborn girls.

These same undeniably callous and passionately misguided women who dare to claim there is a war on women being waged by the GOP and conservatives are the real terrorists waging a war on women by intentionally deceiving and misleading women and girls into believing that abortion is not the killing of an unborn child but just the removal of a blob of tissue, a “zygote”, a few cells, etc.  They would look us in the eyes and demand we yield to their insanity.  We dare to look back into their eyes and stand tall, stand proud, stand resolute in our courage and conviction that abortion takes the life of an unborn child and we will not back down.

Writes Goldberg:

It’s not surprising that anti-abortion activists see sex-selective abortion as their trump card. The issue puts feminists in a particularly difficult spot, turning reproductive choice into a tool of misogyny.”

Difficult spot?  Where is there a liberal pro-abortion feminist that has come out in support of banning “gendercide”?  If it was a “difficult spot”, if there was any amount of “difficulty” that put feminists in a “spot” that “difficulty” would have derived straight from their own conscience and every single feminist knows it.  In other words, the only way Michelle Goldberg or any liberal pro-abortion feminist could be put in a “difficult spot” is if their own conscience turned against their liberal feminist mindset.

Misogyny?  Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls.  the GOP and conservatives support protecting unborn girls from being killed in the womb because they are girls in the womb.  Who is the real misogynist?

Of course, the real “difficult spot” Michelle Goldberg and her ilk have been put in is that they are forced by their own narrow-mindedness to support the killing of unborn girls because if just that one type of abortion is wrong, and they accept that it is wrong, such a move opens up the very real possibility of ending other types of specific abortion like abortion based on race and sexual orientation.

That Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls in the womb without reserve, also means she supports the killing of blacks in the womb because they are black, and the killing of gays in the womb because they will be born gay.  And there in lies the rub.  She must support killing blacks and gays in the womb, just as vehemently as she must support the killing of girls in the womb.  Any hesitation, no matter how slight, is indication that abortion, for even one specific reason, may be wrong and immoral when done for other specific reasons.

Can there be any doubt that Michelle Goldberg cringes over the thought of one girl being killed in the womb because of its gender?  Either she cringes, perhaps even weeps, or she has no heart, no conscience, at all.  And yet, Michelle Goldberg must go along with “gendercide”, supporting it and being unapologetic in her pursuit of abortion on demand, deflecting the issue as anti-woman, a war on women and misogynist.

For now, with the failure to pass “gendercide” in the House, a “woman’s autonomy” remains intact.  However, the war on unborn girls continues to be waged, taking a heavy toll and untold casualties all in the name of “pro-choice”.  Does the right to choose to kill an unborn girl in the womb. because it is a girl, in any way really preserve a “woman’s autonomy”?

Concludes Goldberg:

The lesson is clear. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about sex-selective abortion should be working to fight sexism, its underlying cause. Laws that seek to limit women’s autonomy and confine them to traditional roles have it precisely backward. Unless, of course, limiting women’s autonomy and confining them to traditional roles has been the goal all along.”

Fighting sexism by supporting abortion, and supporting the killing of unborn girls in the womb, is counterproductive.  Sexism, in itself, is why unborn girls are being killed in the womb in the first place.  For Goldberg to insinuate, to insist, that sexism will end when women have the right, and so long as they maintain that right, to kill their unborn girls in the womb without government interference would be laughable but for its tragic consequences.  Goldberg wants us to believe that sexism will end when women have the right to abortion, and the right to kill their unborn child for any reason at any time during her pregnancy – on demand, in privacy, without anyone trying to prevent her from going through with it.  Goldberg is deluding herself if she thinks we are that gullible.

We who are pro-life will continue to find ways to ban abortion, at the same time we work to educate woman and girls about the realities of abortion.  Michelle Goldberg expounds the lies of Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NOW and Terry O’Neill and NARAL and Nancy Keenan.  These women support the killing of girls in the womb, blacks in the womb, gays in the womb any unborn child in the womb.  Either that is moral or that is immoral.  Either that is evil or that is benevolent.  Either that is right or that is wrong.  Either we – who are pro-life – have the courage to continue fighting to save the lives of unborn children or we stand aside and allow the slaughter to go on without stop.  We know where Michelle Goldberg is on this.  Where are we on this?

Planned Parenthood/Cecile Richards; NOW/Terry O’Neill And NARAL/Nancy Keenan Have Committed Devestating War Crimes Against Humanity

We who are pro-life must hold those who support abortion, and those who commit that particular legal killing (morally murder) accountable for their barbaric actions.  Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards; NOW, Terry O’Neill; NARAL, Nancy Keenan and the rest of pro-abortion community blatantly turn a blind eye to their reprehensible activities.  The “choice” to support the killing of an unborn child is not a moral value in any sense of the definition.  A new video has gone viral, exposing the hypocrisy and the evil that is Planned Parenthood, and how they help women with “gendercide”, in particular, killing the unborn child if it is a girl.

We who are pro-life will not tolerate this.  Planned Parenthood is guilty of war crimes against humanity and they, and any of their supporters, must be stopped.  We have an obligation to protect innocent life from unwarranted destruction.  Unless the mother’s life is legitimately at risk, there is no reason for an abortion.  Yet, the usual and most prominent of pro-abortion suspects, Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NARAL and Nancy Keenan, Terry O’Neill and NOW all cackle in delight over their support for the wanton, indiscriminate killing of unborn children at any time during a woman’s pregnancy.

We who are pro-life must continue our verbal and written attacks on Planned Parenthood (no committing murder of our own, or destroying property is acceptable, we understand.  We are not the terrorists – Planned Parenthood is.)  We will not be intimidated by thugs like Cecile Richards, Terry O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, nor will we be silenced.  Take us on, challenge us, try to stop us – just try.  This is our time.  America is vastly more pro-life now than it was thirty years ago.  That trend will only continue, especially the more we expose Planned Parenthood for killing fields they really are.

Women, every day, are being intentionally deceived and defrauded by Planned Parenthood, and aided by NOW and NARAL; emotionally brainwashed and tricked into thinking their unborn child is merely a blob of tissue; psychologically belittled and degraded into thinking their only option is to kill their unborn child.  They have a strong ally in President Barack Obama, who also supports the killing of unborn children.  One more reason why it is so critical to vote him out of office this November.

Abortion is a war crime against humanity and those that contribute to it, encourage it, support and fund it are also guilty of war crimes against humanity.  That means, directly, Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill.  Libel?  Either an unborn child is a human being or it is not.  There is no place, nor any room for, semantics or opinions.  Are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill too stupid to know that an unborn child is a living, breathing human being?  They know.  We need not beat around the bush here.

We who are pro-life must confront Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill head on, challenge them, demand they answer for their war crimes and let them try to squirm their way out of their lies, their hypocrisies, their fraudulence – just try.  We who are pro-life will not abandon the unborn; we will certainly not leave them in the hands of Planned Parenthood.  We will fight for them, for their right to live.  What are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill going to do about it?  Since we do not expect them to come to their senses, dirty and underhanded tricks and some misuse of government comes to mind.  We expect that from them.

The charade that is abortion is coming to an end in America, but that does not mean it is as near its end as we would like it to be.  We have much more work to do.  For example, the House is scheduled to vote to ban sex selective abortion.  It has a very good chance of passing, but the Senate is still questionable.  If it passes the Senate and makes it way to Obama, that will put him in an extremely delicate situation, alienating him with either pro-abortion supporters or women who see sex selection as a war on women, and will hurt his reelection bid regardless of whether he signs it into law or vetoes it.  Obama’s allies in the Senate would naturally do what they could to prevent it from reaching his desk.  However, in their own obstruction, they put themselves and their own political futures in jeopardy.

We must make certain this law first passes the House and moves to the Senate for a vote.  Having  done that, we must push pressure upon and hold each and every single senator accountable who would vote against banning sex selective abortion.  And for those in the House that veto the ban – we must display their names to the entire nation so all Americans can see exactly who supports sex selective abortion.

Our work is not done there.  We also will introduce abortion bans based on color and sexual orientation.  In doing so, these incremental steps we take will go a long way in helping to rid America of abortion.  It will also divide and destroy the pro-abortion movement.  After-all, many gays and lesbians supports abortion, but would they support the killing of an unborn child who might be born gay?  Would blacks who are pro-abortion support the killing of unborn children because they are black?  So, why do Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, Terry O’Neill and NOW, Nancy Keenan and NARAL so smugly believe women who are pro-abortion will so readily accept killing unborn children because they are girls?  Obviously Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill support killing unborn children for any reason, even if they are girls (black and gay included).  Is that the type of American value we want to stand for, or stand up to and ban?

We who are pro-life are not at war with women.  But we are at war with Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill, who happen to be women, and traitors to their own gender.  Let them just try to defend their despicable actions – just try.

Chen Guangcheng: The Pompousness Of China Demands America Be Even More Pompous

With the 2012 Presidential election mere months away, would Barack Obama be daft enough to offer an open apology to China for aiding Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, whose only crime was speaking out about the horrors and inhumanity of forced abortions in China?  Would Obama, by this apology, thereby provide Republicans their own opportunity to attack Obama on what would be his incredible weakness and insensitivity on human rights abuses?  Doesn’t the escape of Chen, and the U.S. involvement in protecting and shielding him from Chinese retribution, box, even intern, Obama into a corner he himself cannot so easily escape?

Either way, Obama is going to piss a lot of people off.  Either the Chinese government, if he doesn’t apologize.  Or – his entire pro-abortion, pro-population control, Democrat/Socialist base if he does apologize.  Will Republicans and conservatives be smart enough to use this issue to excoriate Obama and Democrats, by exposing how insincere and hypocritical Democrats and liberals really are when it comes to human rights abuses – if those abuses are the result of so-called “dissidents” being involved in acts of saving and protecting human life in the womb?

Whatever Obama does (and in all rationality that will not include an apology) there is, and there remains, far too much “ceremony” and “dance” between the United States and China going on in regards to Chen Guangcheng and that apology China demands – and the ridiculousness of that apology.

Indeed, there is, peculiarly and suspiciously, far too much nonsense and shuffling of feet, and of hands in pockets, between America and China on a range of human rights issues.  China has even censored Chen’s escape from its own people.  Obama is feeling the pressure from all sides to do something for Chen; something which will undoubtedly further antagonize China.  But to wash his hands of Chen at this point would further destabilize, demoralize and demonize Obama’s reelection bid.

Chen has since left the U.S. Embassy with the assurance from China both he and his family would not be harmed.  Even that begs the question – what kind of a government engages in psychological terror against its own people by threatening to bring harm to one’s entire family for the crimes of that one family member?  And, what is China’s word really worth?

And – is it moral to allow some Chinese (and with a population over one billion, “some” is meant to represent millions) to be, and to continue to be, abused and to have their rights, their dignity, their humanity stripped away from them because America is afraid of antagonizing China to the point its shuts its country, and its money, off completely from America?

If China is engaged in such horrific practices against its own people (which there is clear evidence it is); if America is aware of it (which America is); if an “aware” America ignores these abuses, whatever reasons America would offer for turning a blind eye, what does that say about the morality of America?  To put it blatantly, America needs to stop sucking up to the Chinese for their money and the money they use to buy American debt.  America needs to abandon any fear it has with regards to the Chinese military and its capability, including its nuclear prowess.  America needs to put aside China’s power as an economic force in this world.  Or, is China’s military, its economy and its money, and the money China uses to buy our debt, worth allowing China to continue, unhindered, abusing its own people?  Is it worth buying time, hoping diplomacy will eventually win out and China will see the senseless cruelty it has heaped upon its own people?  How many more of China’s citizens is America willing to “throw under the bus” in that meantime?

It is China who owes America an apology for bribing U.S officials to look the other way when it commits human rights abuses against is own people.  It is China who owes its own people an apology for the human rights abuses and atrocities it has committed against them.  And it is the U.S. government who owes Americans an apology for accepting billions of dollars in blood money in exchange for being so complacent.

It is a fallacy that America needs China’s money, or that America needs China to bail out America’s debt.  Our debt crisis can be solved through proper fiscal restraint.  It certainly won’t be solved by printing more money, tacking that money onto the national debt and having China continuously buy that debt, in effect buying an even larger piece of America.  The debt owned by China is staggering enough already.  But – what happens if diplomacy between China and the U.S breaks down because of America’s involvement in helping Chen escape further persecution?  America loses an investor?  Is that a big deal?  Or, to put it another way – is keeping China as an investor worth the continued human rights abuses China systematically, intentionally commits upon its own people?

Isn’t about time we did have leaders with the tenacity and gall to stand up to China?  Or do we respect leaders more when they keep theirs mouths shut, their eyes closed, in exchange for all the money China invests in America?  No!  America need leaders who can openly, courageously, frankly and forcefully, address the human rights abuses in China directly, with less pomp and more pompousness of its own.

Wouldn’t Obama be better to dis China, work first on getting reelection – get reelected – then he can have the luxury all second term Presidents have in that he won’t have the worries associated with campaigning or offending anyone because he is a lame-duck President?  At that point he can work to regain Chinese-American relations, whatever that means in the face of continued human rights abuses.  That, assuming Obama wins.  If he loses (presumably to Mitt Romney) then Chen, and Chinese-American relations become someone else’s problem.  But at least Chen, and his family, would have been saved from whatever punishment China might have exacted upon them.  Isn’t that worth the gamble of slighting China for the next nine or ten months?

Dog Dismembers Two Month Old Child; Abortionist Dismembers Two Month Old Fetus – What’s The Difference?

Here’s a sad and disheartening story out of Summerville, S.C. – a two month old child has been killed, dismembered, by a family dog.  It’s a tragedy that tugs at the hearts of any parent.  But – why is it when, instead of a family dog, or wild animal, doing the killing, it is an abortionist doing the killing, and the dismembering of a fetus –  that kind of a story does not horrify the same people who become horrified and saddened over the death of a two month old child?  In other words, what is the difference between a “family dog” killing and dismembering a two month old child, and an abortionist killing and dismembering a two months old fetus, or a fetus at any stage of development?

When a pet, however tame, in a moment of “wildness” injures or kills a child – isn’t it routine to “put down” (kill) that pet?  We would never consider doing that to an abortionist, would we?  The animal, on the one hand, which commits the injury, or killing, of a child does not do so with premeditated  intent or knowledge that in doing so it will ultimately harm the child.  The abortionist, on the other hand, when it kills and dismembers the fetus from the womb, absolutely does do so with premeditated intent and with the knowledge that in doing so they will ultimately be causing the death of the unborn child.

Why is it moral to kill the animal for doing something it does not know, does not have the capacity to know, is going to result in the injury or death of the child, or person, it attacks?  And – why is it moral to allow an abortionist to do something to a fetus, an unborn child, knowing, and having the capacity and intelligence to know, full well that what they are doing is killing the fetus?

The same people who would argue the position of “Well, the child is two months old and already out of the womb”, and who use that as reason enough to justify the difference are the same people who support partial birth abortion.  In other words, does a child have to be fully out of the womb before it is afforded legal protection and status as a human being?  And is that why supporters of abortion so vigorously support any method of killing the unborn child, even partially delivering it; then killing it; then removing the rest of the corpse from the womb?

There is only one difference between a dog, any animal, injuring and/or killing a child/person and an abortionist killing an unborn child in/partially out of the womb.  The abortionist is doing it knowingly, intentionally and with the full knowledge of what they are doing will result in the killing of the unborn child.  (The abortionist is also doing it knowing they will be paid for their services.)

Why do we tolerate the abortionist killing the unborn child?  Why do we “put down” the animal for doing, ultimately, the same thing as the abortionist?  The abortionist, or the animal – which is the more ravenous and wild?

A “War On Women”? Then Let It Be An Armageddon! And Let These Women Feel Our Intense Wrath Reign Hellfire And Damnation Down Upon Them…

Sharpen your wits and your tongues – liberals insist there is a war on women.  On the one hand it’s absurd, but the more we (conservatives) attest to its absurdity, the louder liberals cry “war on women”.  They own the MSM and so have the ability, through their puppet stations and wide variety of media outlets, to drown out the opposition – which is us.  (That market, by the way, has been diminishing for many years.)  On the other hand, liberals are emphatic in their insistence that a “war on women” truly exists, and is being waged on women, by conservatives, specifically.  Who are we, then, to quibble over trivialities?

Liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war intentionally designed to either remove by degrees and increments, by huge chunks or eliminate altogether in one fell swoop, the legal right women now have with regards to, as liberals call it, reproductive health decisions.  (Conservatives understand the myriad code words, phrases and lingo liberals use.)

What liberals are really saying when they claim a “war on women” exists is that conservatives are trying, and often succeeding at unprecedented levels liberals never thought could be possible, to make illegal what is now legal, and has been legal since 1973.  Namely, the legal right to have an abortion.  Abortion – also known as the killing of unborn children.  That is what all this hub-bub and hullabaloo is all about.  Women – liberal women – want to retain the right to kill unborn children at will and in privacy.  And damn anyone that tells them they can’t do that!

Abortion is only a legal right, and only intact as long as there is a majority support for it in legislatures which, and by legislators who, are elected to pass and abolish laws.  But no law is set in stone, even liberals know that.  And it’s interesting to note that liberals, with the exception of abortion, reject the notion any law is “set in stone”, including, and especially pertaining to, our Constitution.  Nothing is untouchable, so far as liberals are concerned, except abortion.  “Separate but equal” was set law for many decades, longer than Roe vs. Wade has been around.  That was overturned, rightly, of course.  But Roe vs. Wade, of which liberals and feminists just celebrated the 39th anniversary, contest is set in stone.  Can anyone name any other law liberals attest is also set in stone?

Now, we – those of us who are pro-life – have but two options:

One – we can acquiesce to liberals; we can accept that abortion is set law, well established, well grounded, stare decisis; we can remove our vocal and physical presence and simply walk away; we can tie our hands behind our backs and turn a blind eye; we can ignore what we know is happening behind closed doors in privacy, roughly one million times a year across America; we can abandon morality, ethics, common decency and common sense and sensibility; we can make all the pretend excuses we want for our silence, to replace and to fill the vast void, the nothingness left from our absence.  Liberals would love that.

Two – we can grow some courage, stand up and fight.  We can meet liberals on the battlefield and make war with them, crush them, annihilate them, bury them underneath the weight of their own fallacies, their own hyperbole, their own arrogance, their own hubris!

We are not at war with women to take away their right to:  vote, work, get an education, read and write, walk in public without a male escort; marry whom they choose.  We are not at war with women to make them:  less equal to men in any sense of Constitutional law, the dominion of men in any sense of the definition, “barefoot and pregnant”, homemakers and housewives, miserable.

But we are at “war with women” if, and because, liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war against abortion, and to end abortion in America.  In that sense – liberals are absolutely right, damn right, about there being a “war on women”.  Who are we, pro-lifers, to deny that war does not exist?  Who are we to reject that “war on women”?  Hold your head high and embrace it!  Revel in it!  Relish it!  Embroil yourself in it!  Fight!

Gangs Aren’t The Only Ones Glamorizing Murder, Or Proud Of Themselves For Murdering

Some people are more prone to murder than others.  Gang members, having grown up living in and around a circle of violence, probably all their lives, see death and the killing of others for the sake of their gangs as normal as eating and breathing.  We – we who actually are as normal as eating and breathing – look upon the actions of gang members with derision, disgust and outrage.  We tend to support laws that make it hard for gang members to operate.  And we certainly support laws that punish gang members when they do commit crimes, especially violent crimes like murder.  We certainly do not look upon murder by gang members as justification for the lifestyle they lead.  Nor do we look upon murder by gang members, who murder rival gang members, as justification for having crossed into one another’s “territory”.  In fact – do we ever look upon murder committed by gang members with understanding, compassion, empathy, sympathy or justification?  Do we ever seek to protect the “rights” of gang members to kill one another?  Do we ever attempt to grant “rights” for gang members to kill one another?  If not – why?

If gang members must kill one another to survive in their own world; if gang members must kill one another to show superiority and who is in, and who has, “control”; if gang members must kill or risk being killed themselves (a sort of self-defense); if gang members must kill one another to preserve the integrity and the “health” of their gangs; if gang members killing one another is mostly a “private” affair between one gang and another; if gang members killing one another is only hurting themselves, and that is the decision they “choose” to live by – then why are any of us so overly concerned whether or not gangs members are killing one another?  Why do we waste time, energy and taxes dollars trying to stop gangs from operating by arresting them, putting them on trial and then in jail?  Why do we pass all types of restrictive legislation that makes it harder to be in a gang, and to make committing a crime while in a gang, especially murder, more harsh, more difficult, more painful?  And – why, when one gang member kills another gang member, do we call that, of all things – murder?  Isn’t that a bit hypocritical, all things considered?

All things like the fact that there are millions of people who have committed murder, who have never been in a gang, and who have the full support of many millions more people, including politicians, judges, entire courts millions of people who will never be arrested, prosecuted or serve one day in jail for having committed murder.  And – many of whom who would not only not hesitate to commit murder again, but would openly brag about it, defend it, celebrate it!  After-all – they too have grown up surrounded by a culture that supports what is otherwise, morally and ethically, at least, murder, even if they, just as gang members, don’t see it that way.

What is the real difference between gang members who commit murder on a street corner or in a back alley and these people who commit murder in a place located near a street corner, and sometimes also in a back alley?

Planned Parenthood Is Praying, Literally, For The Death Of Unborn Children

It’s apparently hard times for Planned Parenthood, and they are hurting, financially, as more women choose life for their unborn children rather than the sought after death that pro-abortion supporters have been fighting decades to increase.  In response to this,  Planned Parenthood has taken a new and unusual approach.  Although one can hardly call Planned Parenthood religious, they hasn’t stopped them from turning to God in prayer – praying for more business. They are literally praying for women to come into abortion clinics and end their pregnancies.  And, as it turns out, they have some help from an unexpected source.  Christians, usually an arch-enemy of abortion advocates, have come to the aid of Planned Parenthood.  And Planned Parenthood, needing all the help it can get, is not turning a blind eye on these “religious” fanatics.  Is there any new low Planned Parenthood is not willing to go?

Religions do not differ on the life issue – all major religions are pro-life and oppose abortion, which is the killing of unborn children.  However, individuals with warped minds, and a false sense of what religion is and what it represents, have managed to infiltrate these religions with pro-abortion, pro-liberal, pro-Leftist propaganda and have begun to warp and twist religion, bend, weaken and tweak it in order to make religion irrelevant.  Because, right now religion, and the conservative elements of Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, even Mormonism, are what is holding together the fabric, the sanctity, the value of human life.

What happens, then, when liberal, pro-abortion organizations find ways to infiltrate what has always been a safe haven for life?  What happens when more “religious” people turn their backs on life and embrace death?  And what exactly is the reason why anyone would embrace death for unborn children, rather than life?  Obviously, there is nothing in the deal for the unborn children that are aborted.  What is in it for the women who have the abortions?  For that matter, what is in it for those “religious Christians” that have sided with Planned Parenthood?  We know full well what Planned Parenthood has to gain from abortion, and more abortions, right?

Liberal Women Paint The Killing Of Unborn Children With “Flowery” Buzzwords

Abortion, in America, is nearing its bloody end.  A bold statement perhaps, but liberals, and liberal feminists, are all too aware of what is going on in America, the political climate circulating around abortion and their inability to get around the fact that abortion is, always has been, and always will be – the killing of  an unborn child.  But that does not stop them from trying.

Abortion won’t end tomorrow, nor will it end immediately after Romney is sworn in as President.  But Americans are more pro-life (a term dreaded and despised by liberals) than they have ever been, and that trend will continue to grow.  To counter this shift, to delay it, to turn it back to the pro-abortion side, a new marketing scheme is underway to make you think that abortion is really all about “women’s health planning”.

Arianna Nation SS contributors, Vicky Kuperman and Erica Grossman write:

It’s [abortion] all about political “framing,” a term that is familiar to anyone who has even occasionally channel-surfed through C-SPAN. In the case of women’s rights, conservatives have historically excelled at cloaking their various agendas — primarily, their fierce opposition to abortion — in either sunny, feel-good terms (“pro-life” as opposed to “anti-abortion,” for example) or in graphic and shocking terms (“partial-birth abortion” as opposed to “late-term abortion”). In the end, these emotionalized buzzwords have enabled them to perfect a kind of moral hijacking, hitting their base in the gut, and rallying them through anger and fear.

Why would pro-abortion advocates have to go to such lengths to disguise abortion if a majority in America are pro-abortion?  We can clearly see how much Vicky and Erica disdain life in their mockery of the term “pro-life”, and how much they are in denial over the definition of “partial-birth abortion”.  Partial birth abortion is an exact term.  In other words, it describes exactly what is happening – the child is partially born (removed from the womb), but because its head is too large to fit comfortably through the birth canal, the doctor plunges a long, sharp probe into its skull and begins sucking out the brain and fluids, which deflates the head and makes for an easier passage.  That is what Vicky, Erica and every other damned, contemptible supporter of this procedure don’t want you to actually know or understand.  Hence, they “flower” the term and make it smell better to the unwary, the uneducated, the unknowing and unsuspecting people they have been able to brainwash.  “Late term abortion” they dub it.  Because most people who support abortion don’t actually know what abortion is, calling partial birth abortion simply a “late-term abortion” will not register with these people.

Liberals will indeed need a better marketing strategy if they want to continue brainwashing people into support the killing of unborn children.  What is ironic is, the more they attempt to distract and disguise what abortion really is with “flowery” rhetoric, speech, and buzzwords, the more they actually expose themselves and their agenda and how shady, how corrupt, how disingenuous they, and abortion, really is.

And if they think they can mask the killing of unborn children by calling it “women’s health planning”, this will be another surefire disaster for them.  They – liberals and liberal pro-abortion feminists – are engaged in a cover-up.  They are guilty of doing to, and for, abortion exactly what was being done for decades by the Catholic hierarchy with their pedophile priests in that each of the two realities – abortion and pedophilia  – were covered-up and disguised.  And just as abortion was re-branded and re-marketed, so too were the priests, who were moved from one parish to another, thereby creating a new and “clean” slate.  But the truth still lurked underneath the “flowery” revision of priest pedophilia just as much as the truth still lurks underneath the “flowery” renaming of abortion as “women’s health planning”.  A pedophile priest is still a pedophile priest; that he has been moved to another parish does not change that.  Abortion is still abortion; that it is called something else does not change that.

Of “women’s health planning”, Vicky and Erica say:

These words not only have the benefit of sounding neutral and caring, but they also checkmate conservatives from mounting a counterattack. After all, it’s hard to imagine Mitt Romney railing against a woman’s health and walking away from the podium intact.

Of course they could not be more deluded and more blinded by reality.  The “counterattack” has already been “mounted”, their agenda has been exposed as shallow and hollow, and they have been shown to be the frauds they are.  Conservatives can very easily promote women’s health without promoting the killing of unborn children.

Or – do Vicky and Erica, do all liberals, and pro-abortion liberal feminists, really believe that abortion, and having an abortion, promotes women’s health, and makes women healthier for having had one?  If they do, why aren’t they advocating that every woman have at least one abortion in their lifetime?   Mitt Romney is advocating against abortion in his Presidential bid.  Why isn’t Obama advocating for abortion in his reelection bid?

Wisconsin Planned Parenthood Bombed – Very Suspicious

A small bomb exploded outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Wisconsin, setting off a small fire which extinguished itself before firefighters were on the scene.

We who are legitimately pro-life condemn any action of violence, even if it from someone on the Right, and we hope the guilty party is captured and brought to justice.  This is something the Left cannot bring itself to do with its own.  Think Occupy Wall Street.  Think the New Black Panther Party.  Think Unions.  The Left has no problem with inciting or carrying out violence to further its own cause.  The Right opposes the use of violence, even to stop abortions from occurring or to scare abortion providers enough to not perform them.  The ends don’t justify the means, and two wrongs don’t make a right.  That won’t stop the Left from accusing the Right for this bombing, or continuing to insist the Right is the more violent of the two political sides.

What is suspicious about this is that the bomb itself was small – so small, in fact, that the damage was not great, and the fire it started was put out on its own, before fire fighters were on the scene.  Either the bomber was inexperienced with bombs, how to make them, where to place them for maximum effect, etc. – which is possible, or could it be that the bomb was placed by an abortion supporter in an attempt to masquerade as a pro-life lunatic on the fringe in order to gain sympathy for the pro-abortion side?  In other words, a sophisticated maniac, who wanted to blow up and abortion clinic because, in their warped mind, that was what God would want them to do, and in order to save babies from being aborted, would still possible enough of his/her faculty to build a bomb large enough, with enough explosive power to do the maximum amount of damage.  Such people also have an ego complex and want to be caught, and want to take credit for their actions.

Although we who are pro-life condemn the bombing of any building, including an abortion clinic, that will go in one ear and out the other of liberals who are eager to jump down the throats of pro-lifers, and looking for any kind of justification for their vitriol.

According to the most recent statistics from the National Abortion Federation, there were 114 violent attacks against abortion providers in 2011, including three physical assaults, one bombing, one incident of arson, 27 counts of vandalism and eight burglaries.

But over one million acts of violence against unborn children – abortion – still occurs every year.  Violence is not the answer to the abortion dilemma.  Changing laws that protect abortion, and changes hearts that support abortion is the answer.  Here is to hoping the guilty part is swiftly apprehended and appropriately punished.  And here is also hoping that abortion itself will soon be a thing of the past not through violence but through peace.

Abortion: Making It Mandatory For Women To Watch It (And The Meaning Of “Respect”)

At least one Arizona GOP legislator has stated that all women seeking abortion ought to first witness an abortion before they have the procedure done to them.  Terri Proud (R-Tuscon) has stated in an email:

“Personally I’d like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a “surgical procedure”. If it’s not a life it shouldn’t matter, if it doesn’t harm a woman then she shouldn’t care, and don’t we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else.

Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain – I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living – I will be voting YES.”

Consequently, the Left is in an uproar over this.  Why?  Because most abortions that are performed behind closed doors, in abortion clinics, occur sometime after the fetus has grown too large to be “safely” removed via an abortion inducing drug.  It must be “removed” manually.  At this point in its development, the fetus has taken on enough human characteristics to actually be recognized as a human being.

The idea of having a woman watch as a fetus – clearly and visibly human – is “removed” from its mother’s womb is not the kind of marketing abortion providers want advertised on their brochures.  In fact, there is not a single abortion provider, or advocate, who would support such a move.  Expect, perhaps, this one.  Abortion, as far as the rest are concerned, must remain secretive.  Doesn’t this mysteriousness bother anyone; make you the least amount suspicious, intrigued, curious as to why, as Terri Proud stated in her email,  “If it’s not a life it shouldn’t matter, if it doesn’t harm a woman then she shouldn’t care”.  Why, indeed, all the secrecy?  Or is it we are afraid of having confirmed what we already know to be true?

Women deserve better than the lies and misinformation that are being told to them by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, etc.  These self-serving, indignant organizations have long been at war with both womanhood and motherhood of which nearly 60 million unborn children have been the casualties.  Women also deserve better from men – those men who would only lust over them rather than love them.  But at the same time, women also deserve better from other women, and that includes themselves.  When men respect women, and when women respect themselves, they both avoid those unintended consequences which often finds women sitting and waiting in an abortion clinic.

But before women can demand respect from men, they need to first respect themselves, and their bodies.  And women who do not respect their bodies enough to keep men out of them can’t expect men to show them the respect they feel they deserve.  Men will respect women more who push them away.  And for those men who can’t, or won’t, take “no” for an answer – did they ever have any respect for women to begin with?  So why would women waste their time with such men?  And where did these men learn to treat women with such disrespect?  A disrespect, remember, with consequences that often finds the woman sitting and waiting in an abortion clinic.

We can look to the public schools for that answer.  When schools teach “safe” sex education, they are really teaching kids that waiting to have sex has no value, no merit, no worth, no logical or ration point.  Through “safe” sex education, kids are being taught and encouraged early on to have sex, rather than postpone it until marriage.   “Safe” sex education leads teenagers to believe their bodies are not worth respecting enough to hold off.  So, consequently, they don’t.  This often leads to the same unintended consequences that finds women sitting and waiting in an abortion clinic, and for which pro-abortion advocates, like Planned Parenthood, would endorse for teenage girls, with or without their parents knowledge or consent.  Once again, this disrespect for women finds women, and even teenage girls, sitting and waiting in an abortion clinic.

And it finds those of us who are pro-life – which is very much pro-woman – perplexed, frustrated and stumped.  Here we are trying to save the lives of unborn children – which ultrasounds clearly prove are actual human beings and for which there is a wealth of photos anyone can view on the internet that clearly shows what a fetus looks like throughout its development – and we are being challenged every step of the way.  We expect that from Planned Parenthood, and ultra-liberal feminists who have abandoned all notion of respect for women for their own selfish goals.  We ought not expect that from anyone else.

So, when a pro-life Republican – a woman –  writes in an email that women ought to watch an abortion first, before they undergo the procedure themselves, although her words may be more poetic than literal, what might actually happen to those women who do view an abortion as it happens?  And why would anyone object to having women watch an abortion so they can see for themselves what an abortion really is, what it looks like, and what is ultimately “removed” at the end of the procedure?

Women demand men show them respect – a respect they feel they deserve and for which men ought accept women deserve.  But what does the definition of “respect” mean to those women who cheapen themselves by flaunting themselves, by giving into the wiles of the very men they accuse of being disrespectful to them?  And why should the definition of “respect” for women include accepting whatever corrections a woman chooses to make to regain her “independence”?

Perhaps when more men respect women, and when more women respect themselves, all that extra respect for one another will do more in keeping women out of abortion clinics, sitting and waiting to have something done to them, to their bodies, they might feel too ashamed and too uncomfortable with actually knowing anything about.  But if you do want to know about it – Terri Proud has the solution for you.  So why pretend to be outraged?

The “War On Women” Is All About Abortion (The Daily Kos Proves It)

The Daily Kos links to an article at tennessean.com with “war on women” as its highlighted title link regarding a bill being pushed through in Tennessee that would put the names of doctors who performed abortions in a publication listed online, as well as provide more information about those abortionists.

Here is how it looks on The Daily Kos:

•  The War on Women continues, this week in Tennessee, where Republicans aren’t concerned about the privacy of women or the safety of doctors:

Doctors who perform abortions in Tennessee could see their names listed online, and women who undergo the procedures could be unintentionally identified under a bill pending in the state legislature.

So we have myriad liberal feminists decrying a “war on women” all over the fact – and it is now fact because it is on The Daily Kos, and they never lie about anything – that conservative lawmakers are working endlessly to save the lives of unborn children from the women who would abort them, who would want the right to abort them, who would want taxpayers to pay for the abortions.  We can argue about whether or not putting the mother’s name on the list is going too far.  Her name ought not be there, but as for the bill itself, if abortionists are that ashamed and embarrassed to have their names associated with the abortions they perform – what does that tell you about the doctors themselves and the overall practice of abortion itself?

And as for the “war on women”?  Women and young girls all over the Muslim world are being systematically beaten, tortured and murdered every single day.  In fact, while you are reading this, a woman or young girl is being beaten by a Muslim man who wants to control and dominate her.  Another woman or young girl has just been sold off to pay a “humiliation” debt – where the girl humiliated her family by being raped.  And yet another woman or young girl has been murdered.

But here in America, where the real “war on women” is raging, conservatives are sending women back into the Dark Ages according to whacked out feminists like Angelica Huston all over the right to kill an unborn child.  Someone needs to snap these delusional feminists out of there loony, tripped-up trance and point them back to reality.

Conservatives are waging a war to save lives – unborn lives.  If that justifies calling it a  “war on women” than words no longer have any meaning.  And what does that tell you about liberal feminists who put more value on words than they do on the unborn?

And – how many beatings and murders of women and young girls have there been just in the time it took you to read this?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 9: To Her, A “Wrongful Birth” Means One Less Abortion

Pro-abortion advocates, and Michelle Goldberg, who frequently cheer-leads for the cause, see no value, no worth, no actual life in any fetus to begin with.  But a fetus which has developed some type of abnormality, such a Downs Syndrome, or where one or more of its body parts is either deformed or missing altogether is even less worth saving, from the pro-abortion perspective.  Many women obviously would want to abort such children “for their own good” – the child’s own good, that is.  But is the mother really aborting the child for its own good, or hers?

Outrage within the pro-abortion community is brewing over whether or not a doctor can intentionally keep information about a woman’s unborn child from her when abnormalities arise, thinking, fearing she might abort it if she found out.  Arizona just passed a bill to protect doctors who lie to pregnant mothers in what has been dubbed “wrongful birth”.  Wrongful birth, because had the mother known of the “malady” ahead of the birth, she might have opted for the abortion instead, thereby “sparing” the child all the “pain” and “hurt” and “psychological” and “emotional” scars it would encounter throughout its life.  Death, advocates Michelle Goldberg, and pro-abortion supporters, is the preferred option.

From The Daily Beast, writes Michelle:

In some states, though, anti-abortion activists are pushing legislation to protect doctors who don’t give women all available information about their pregnancies. Arizona and Kansas are considering bills that would ban lawsuits in cases where doctors fail to warn their patients about birth defects. The Arizona law, which is similar to legislation that exists in a handful of other states, would apply only when doctors make a mistake. But the Kansas provision, part of a sweeping, 69-page anti-abortion bill, would allow physicians to lie to women who might otherwise terminate their pregnancies. It is similar to a law in Oklahoma passed two years ago—in concert, ironically, with mandatory ultrasound legislation.

While Michelle is flabbergasted that a woman would not be given the information about her unborn child’s development, or underdevelopment, so she can quickly abort it if she chooses, interestingly, but not surprisingly, Michelle, and all pro-abortion advocates, would rather deny women the right to know the child they are about to abort is actually a human being by showing the mother an ultrasound image of her child.  This begs the question – if a woman would feel uncomfortable viewing a picture of a healthy child she is about to kill, would a woman want to see the ultrasound picture of her underdeveloped child so she can feel more comfortable killing it?

Michelle argues that doctors who are allowed to lie are also getting away with their own responsibility in the prenatal care of the fetus, and should complications arise, a doctor who knowingly keeps such information from the mother would not be liable, and therefore cannot be sued.  Well, from the pro-abortion point of view, how can any doctor be sued for “negligence” if a fetus is not a human being to begin with?  Michelle’s argument is baseless if she is also taking the position that a fetus is not a human being.  But if a fetus is a human being, then her and the entire pro-abortion position becomes baseless as well as dangerous.  Michelle cannot have it both ways.

Doctors are fearful, and rightfully so, that when they relay the news to the mother her fetus will not be born “normal” she will want to abort her child rather than give it life.  Granted, doctors ought not lie, or feel compelled to lie, in order to protect the life of an unborn fetus.  Nor ought women feel helpless that a child born with an abnormality, disability or deformity is going to automatically have less quality of life than anyone else.  if anything, it is the pro-abortion movement which has placed doctors in the position of having to lie in order to protect the unborn child from being aborted.

We, who are born relatively normal, cannot fathom our lives without arms or legs, without sight or hearing, without a sound mind, etc.  But for those people who are born without arms or legs, who are born blind and/or deaf, who are born with an underdeveloped brain or any type of disability or abnormality – do they actually miss what they never had?  And would they rather their mothers had killed them in womb than give them a life, an opportunity for life, which pro-abortion advocates consider substandard and subhuman, but which they, and millions of others who were given life, consider a better alternative to death?

Millions of people are born with all sorts of disabilities, abnormalities, complications, etc, and do lead normal, healthy, worthwhile and satisfying lives.  Why would Michelle Goldberg and pro-abortion supporters so selfishly deny these people the right to live?

We, who are born relatively normal, are acting selfishly, and for ourselves, when we support abortion over life.  If a woman has a legal right to abort a child for one reason, then rationally she has a right to abort a child for any reason.  And therein lies the crux of the abortion problem and why this is a situation of all or nothing.  In other words, either we allow abortion for any reason, or we don’t allow it at all.  But if we allow abortion for any reason, pro-abortion advocates must accept, and be willing to accept abortion in cases where a child will be born gay, black (non-white) or female.  Can liberals, like Michelle Goldberg, stomach these types of abortions as well as they stomach every other type of abortion?

If we who are pro-life can challenge Michelle, and all pro-abortion advocates on this, we can win this debate faster and easier than arguing abortion from strictly a religious point of view.  Abortion is a moral issue also, and either life has value or it hasn’t.  Force pro-abortion advocates to admit that they support killing black babies, gay babies and female babies in the womb; force them to admit they support killing blind babies, deaf babies, Downs Syndrome babies, and any babies that will be born with any type of abnormalities and they, along with their pro-abortion position, will disintegrate.  Are we up to that challenge?

The Sperm And The Egg By Themselves Are More Intelligent Than Jennifer Granholm

What do you get when you cross a sperm with – nothing else?  Or – everything else but a woman’s egg?  Not human life, anyway.  But ask feminist, Jennifer Granholm, what you do get when you cross a sperm and an egg, and be certain to notice the confused look on her face that develops when she tries to answer the question.  And don’t be surprised if she simply tries to evade the question altogether.

Jennifer Granholm, a former Governor no less, and not very importantly, classically lays out the living proof that men, liberal, conservative or otherwise, are not needed to demonstrate just how inane feminists are.  Granholm compares sperm, which she dubs “pre-life”, with a fetus, which is in fact life, and human life to be exact.  She furthers states that forcing a woman to submit to an ultrasound is no different from making men who want a vasectomy submit to an ultrasound on their testicles to show them all the sperm, the “pre-life” , they are about to “kill”.  She emotionally writes that “Women are facing sexual McCarthyism“.

That’s very dramatic coming from someone who is essentially an airhead.  She goes on to make her point, as feminists are wont to do over and over again, that conservatives (men in particular) are conducting  a “war on women” by increasing the amount of anti-abortion legislation, including the now infamous “rape” bill passed in Virginia which does the unspeakable to women – but which we will speak of anyway –  forcing women to view an ultrasound image of the child in her womb she is about to kill.

The “war on women” can be measured, in one sense, by the volume of demeaning and physically violating measures that not only force women to undergo procedures against their will, but force doctors to perform procedures that are medically unnecessary.”

Conservatives, Granholm insists, have turned the abortion debate into a “witch hunt” (i.e. an unnecessary hysteria) for which we have made countless women unduly suffer by compelling them to look at the baby in their womb they are about to destroy. What can be “hysterical” about wanting women to have all the information at their disposal before they commit their unborn child to a death it need not experience?

She uses a prescription for Viagra to compare that with the “intrusion” of an ultrasound (presumably the trans-vaginal kind).  She is not the only one who has used Viagra and the “wand” in a vain attempt to capture the “insanity” – the feminists point of view – of “forcing” women to have an ultrasound before they have the abortion.  Liberals, remember, reject that a fetus is in fact alive, let alone a human life, and make no distinction whatsoever between a fetus and sperm.  This is exactly the concept Granholm utilizes in her YouTube speech.  (Link provided in her “Women are facing sexual McCarthyism” piece.)

Virginia may have backed away from the invasive transvaginal ultrasound law, but requiring a standard ultrasound runs contrary to the guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Nine states now mandate this “overreach” of government into a very personal and private decision between a woman and her doctor.”

This way of reasoning, by the way, passes for feminist insight and intellectuality, which is why feminists, who flock together, never see the absurdity in their arguments.  If anything, Granholm ought to show us all that the real “war on women” is being waged by women, like Granholm, and that the “war on women”, if there is any legitimacy to it, is a war on women’s intelligence and rationality.  Conservative women are smarter than this, and that is why they side with conservative men, lovingly called misogynists by shocked feminists who feel betrayed by these courageous women.  And by having women, of which there are many millions, disavowing the feminist doggerel it also makes clear that this fight is not in any way anti-woman.

Ladies and gentleman – how does having an abortion make a woman independent?  Or – how does the U.S. Constitution in any way restrict women from being as independent as men and as equal to men?  Is having sex with whomever you want, damning the consequences, and then experiencing those consequences via pregnancy and then going in for the abortion to be “free” once again – to do it all over again – how women really want to view, how they want us to view, their independence?  That seems to be how liberal feminists like Jennifer Granholm view the situation.

Why do we support “subjecting” women seeking an abortion to an ultrasound?  In other words, do we, as conservatives, really hate women that much, or fear their being too independent, we must find whatever ways we can to control and dominate them, to belittle them and subject them to whatever “demeaning, degrading, humiliating tests and procedures” we can devise?  Is that why we really support an ultrasound before the abortion?

Look, it’s obvious that abortion is the most sensitive of public policy issues. Women deeply understand the wrenching trade-offs they must make in weighing such a personal decision. So, in addition to legislatively forced physical procedures, it should come as no surprise that women are angered by patronizing bills mandating waiting periods or forced “reflection” on images or on text written by legislators — bills that assume women are empty-headed children.

The answer to why we oppose abortion, and why we support “subjecting” women who are seeking abortion to having an ultrasound performed is simple – conservatives love and respect life.  That liberals may not legitimately understand our answer, that they may truly not be aware a fetus is in fact a living human being, is absolutely no excuse to condemn unborn children to death by women who are ignorant of the actual facts concerning their unborn child.  In other words, ignorance itself is not justification for approving why a woman would have an abortion.  Or, should there be an intelligence test performed on women seeking an abortion, and those with the lowest IQ’s can go ahead with the abortion because they are legitimacy ignorant of what they are doing?  And for the women who do have high IQ’s, because they know they are killing their unborn child, they are just too smart for their own good and must be punished for being intelligent?  The “punishment” being having to go through with the pregnancy and birth.

The ultrasound is intended to prove to the woman seeking the abortion that she is not removing a blob of tissue or a collection of cells.  It is liberal feminists, like Granholm, who would seek to prevent this information, which Granholm says is “unnecessary” from being disseminated to women.  It is Granholm who supports purposely restricting this information.

Conservatives realize and accept that women are not “empty-headed children”.  But what about Granholm?  What about all liberals who insist women ought not be given the information about their unborn child they need in order to make an informed decision?  Some women will opt out of the abortion when they see the image of their unborn child?  Why does this bother Jennifer Granholm so much?

To The Foolish Women Who See No Difference Between Viagra And Birth Control

All Viagra does, or is intended to do, is help men, who otherwise can’t, get an erection.  Birth control, on the other hand is either intended to prevent a pregnancy or end it after it occurs.  Liberal women, mostly feminists, who proclaim there is a “war on women“, because men (and not to mention many millions of women too) are working feverishly to enact laws which seek to restrict some forms of birth control and contraception – for specific and well qualified reasons – cannot rationally compare the two.

Because of this, some silly, childish women, who happen also to be politicians, like Nina Turner, (Democrat, Ohio) thinking they can use Viagra as a comparison with birth control and contraception, have introduced a bill to make men “jump through hoops” to get it.  It is merely diversionary and solely intended to illustrate, from the liberal point of view, how “ridiculous it is to stop women from accessing birth control and contraception”.  Of course, since that is not what conservatives are trying to do, liberals only make that much more fools of themselves.

First of all, we have already deduced that there is no comparison between Viagra and birth control/contraception.

Secondly, if, at any time, politicians want to remove Viagra from the list of government-funded drugs, medications, health services, etc. do it.  Viagra is not such a necessity that taxpayers need, or ought, to fund it.  And while we are at it, we can eliminate a host of other “health” related services which taxpayers ought not be covering.  In other words, trying to use Viagra as a scare tactic is futile and useless.

Thirdly, and back to this “war on women” nonsense liberals have concocted, and other liberal women perpetuate, like Gretchen Whitmer – conservatives do not want to ban birth control or contraception.  We simply do not want to pay for it.  In other words, if women are provided with free birth control and contraception, there are a whole lot of people who need to get paid for having manufactured it, distributed it, stocked it on shelves and sold it to consumers.  Since everyone involved in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of  birth control and contraception are in fact being paid, (or is it literally slave labor) who is paying them, if not the women buying it from them?

We can say that the cost is covered either through government health programs and assistance or health insurance companies through the place of business where a woman works.  However, whether through government health programs – which is subsidized directly by taxpayers, or the place of business – which does not eat the extra cost but passes that cost downward onto its consumers, as well as onto its employees in the form of lower wages/lower or deferred raises, reduced benefits, etc. – someone is paying women for their birth control and contraception.  And if there is no co-pay, then the entire cost is passed along to us all.

Fourthly – and most importantly – conservatives neither support paying for or keeping legal, those birth control and contraception pills and devices which are intended to end a pregnancy.  That is, to kill a child in the womb that has already been created.  As conservatives we find that to be morally repugnant.  As conservatives we value life, and we are willing to fight for the sanctity of life, even in the womb.  Abortion, or medication which induces an abortion and destroys a human life is unacceptable.  For those women who do seek abortion, or abortion inducing pills, we absolutely are (pro-life men and women alike) working to pass laws, and overturn others, which allow women to legally terminate the life of their unborn child.  This is by no means a “war on women”.  It is, actually, a war on abortion itself.

Women, and men, who want to engage in sex will not be hindered from doing so through any laws.  And conservatives are not desirous in passing any laws which restrict, prohibit or make illegal such acts.  What we are attempting to restrict, prohibit and absolutely make illegal is abortion.  (All abortion except where the life of the mother is legitimately threatened by her pregnancy, and where the only action which can save the mother’s life is abortion.)  For that, liberal women have labeled us anti-women and misogynists.  So petty and jejune of these women.  But look at these women closely who do cry “war on women” and you will see they themselves are also petty and jejune, and have an ulterior motive.  Namely, while they want the “freedom” to engage in sex, they don’t want to deal with the consequences that often arise – like pregnancy.  So, they want birth control, contraception and abortion on demand readily and fully available.  They also want it for free, either through the government (which would be subsidized through taxpayers) or their insurance companies (which the get through their place of business).  They may get it for free, but someone inevitably is paying for it.

Why should we, the taxpayers, be the ones who ultimately do pay for it?  And why are conservatives labeled anti-woman and misogynists for rejecting the premise that we must pay for it?  And why do liberal women, and men, feel there is a “war on women” because we value human life?

If all liberal women can come up with to make conservatives look foolish for valuing human life is to make it harder for men to obtain Viagra, who is really the fool?

Abortion Is An Emotional Choice Not A Rational Choice

In America, most irrational behavior, to a degree, is Constitutionally protected.  It is when that behavior begins to threaten people, and threaten their lives that government, and legal agencies, have a Constitutional right to step in and put a stop to whatever irrational behavior is being exhibited.  Abortion, because it is the taking, and killing, of a human life (although it is “unborn”) is a threat to the very life of a child in the womb.  Therefore, that threat to life constitutes irrational behavior which is not Constitutionally protected.  As a result, government, and legal agencies, have a Constitutional right, a duty, and a moral obligation and responsibility to step in to protect and prevent the unborn child from being killed in the womb via abortion.

Women who would seek an abortion, rather than carrying the child to full term and giving birth, have been told for decades now that they have a Constitutional right to abortion.  And while the law recognizes a “woman’s right to choose”, there is, however, nothing in the Constitution itself that guarantees a woman with that much liberty.  Roe vs. Wade was decided on emotions rather than rationality.  It was also decided on both misinformation and a lack of information at the time.  The Supreme Court, then, was very adamant, in making its decision, that if ever there was any evidence to prove conclusively that a living human being was being aborted – not a “collection of cells” or a “blob of tissue” – that the abortion should not legally proceed.

In 1973, there were no ultrasounds or sonograms, or any type of cameras or other technologies in use, that could pierce through and see inside the womb and snap pictures of a fetus.  Well, we have that now, and have had that technology for quite some time.  Science has since proven that life does begin at conception.  In other words, at the very moment the male sperm meets and fertilizes the female egg there is a tremendous and instantaneous burst of activity.  Until fertilization, the egg merely waits, and millions of sperm die en route to the egg.

Now that this information exists, it is imperative Roe vs. Wade be revisited and subsequently overturned.   And while Roe vs. Wade will eventually be overturned, obviously the only reason why it hasn’t yet is the result of pro-abortion advocates pleading their support based on emotions rather than rationality.  That, and the fact their organizations, NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. are incredibly well funded, financed and organized, and are able to elect politicians and judges who will vote to keep Roe vs. Wade intact.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade by no means abolishes abortion or even makes it illegal.  It will merely revert the decision-making back to the states, who will then have more freedom to legislate abortion according to their own dictates.  It will then be the states, directly, which can make broad and sweeping changes to abortion law.  Some states will naturally have greater restrictions on abortion than others.  Of course, any restrictions on abortion outrage those who support abortion.  But if you look at the people who support abortion on demand (abortion for any reason, at any time during pregnancy) it is inherent that they are arguing from an emotional standpoint rather than a rational one.

Whatever slogan they happen to use, the whole “It’s our bodies, it’s our choice”, “right to privacy”, “women’s rights”, “women’s heath”, freedom of choice”, mantra all amounts to an emotional outcry, and one that stems from a bygone era that saw many women dying from complicated pregnancies.  Obviously no one, with a rational mind, wants to see, or compel, women to undergo such risky pregnancies by law, and to put their lives in danger, by law, in order to deliver a baby.

But, how is abortion justified when there are no “health” risks to the mother?  How is abortion justified in cases where the mother simply feels she is not ready to give birth; where she feels she cannot adequately or financially care for the child after it has been born; where she has the impression and fear that after the child is born it might experience “neglect, abuse and hatred” by its parents?

These are all emotional outbursts, not rational or clear thinking.  Very few women in America die due to pregnancy any longer.  And where there is a legitimate life threatening issue that cannot be corrected without the abortion, there is no law in America, and there is virtually no one in America that would support such a law, which mandates a woman must sacrifice her own life for her unborn child.  Likewise, if there is a legitimate and specific “health” issue, which is known, which has a name, and research to go along with it; which is documented to be a threat to the woman’s life, and where abortion is yet the only alternative to save the health, and therefore the life, of the woman – no such a law in America now exists, or would ever exist, which would put the life of the unborn child ahead and above that of the woman.  Conservatives support life, and that includes the life of the mother.  We are not so callous, not so irrational in our own thinking that we would intentionally and knowingly put a woman’s life at risk, even if that meant the unborn child would have to be sacrificed.

Rather, it is the rabidly pro-abortion supporters who put emotions ahead and above life itself, and support the destruction of unborn life for any reason a woman would give as validation for having the abortion.  Hence the “right to privacy” and “freedom of choice” mantra, and the nonsense about the “war on women” and men dominating and controlling women and their bodies.  There is no war on women being waged in America with regards to “domination” and “control” of women.  This is simply irrational and emotionally charged doggerel.  The war being waged is a war for life, and the sanctity of life.

Since there are virtually no deaths that occur with pregnancy, even from complications of pregnancy, in modern-day America, what valid reason – not emotional – is there for killing  an unborn child, and why do certain women still demand a right to legally kill and unborn child and fight fiercely to have that right protected?  And why do these pro-abortion women, when there are many millions of women who are just as adamant in their pro-life position, remain staunchly opposed to allowing women seeking an abortion to have as much information about their unborn child as is possible?  Why do pro-abortion women so vehemently condemn ultrasounds when an ultrasound can prove there is indeed an unborn child in the womb?  Invasive?  “Rape”, they claim.  Even if it is a trans-vaginal ultrasound, the “instrument” used is far less menacing than is the instrument used to “remove” the unborn child from the womb.

It can only be gathered that pro-abortion women have one or more ulterior motives compelling them to keep a woman seeking an abortion from knowing the truth.  Again, emotions over rationality.  If a woman is shown a picture of her child as it is in her womb, even the slightest indication of humanity in that woman’s heart, which then would lead to a change of heart, is worrisome to pro-abortion supporters, in particular liberal feminists who despise childbirth and motherhood which they feel represents living in the “Stone Age”.  Is that rationality or emotions?

Ought we to allow abortion, which we know to be the killing of an unborn life, an innocent human being, based off of any number of emotional responses a woman might be going through?  Ought we allow ourselves to give into the irrationality and emotions pro-abortion advocates use to sway us, to lull us, to silence those of us who are pro-life, who value life, who fight for life?

If we do, aren’t we just as culpable, just as guilty, just as reckless as they are that support abortion on demand through emotions rather than rationality?  Where is the rationality in that?

The Unborn Deserve Better Than Selfish Pro-Abortion Women Who Would Rather They Be Killed In The Womb

Shannon Bradley-Colleary says she is pro-“choice” because she loves her kids.  And she goes on with a lengthy pregnancy story, and a very difficult one, which she sums up by saying she wished the daughter she gave birth to, via c-section, had never been born.  Why?  In Shannon’s own words:

I realized I’d rather Clare never be born than be born into a home where she might be neglected, abused, unwanted or unloved.”

This is what makes pro-abortion women so despicable and disgusting, and why it is so imperative we, who are pro-life, continue to fight for the lives of the unborn, who have no voice of their own.  Is there anything more pathetic, more selfish, more offensive, more morally destructive than a pregnant mother, like Shannon, who wishes her unborn child was dead, was never given the opportunity to live and to know life over something so trivial than what Shannon fears might happen?  Shannon is yet another prime example of how truly evil and demented and heartless human beings can be when it comes to the unborn.  She plays off the “it’s my body, it’s my choice” schtick, but it goes much deeper than that.

Here we have a woman who would wish her child dead, and any child, for fear it may grow up “neglected, abused or unloved”.  So just kill it in the womb and spare it all the possible trouble and heartache and grief it might endure if it was given the chance to live.  But, whatever you do – don’t let it live, don’t let it breathe life, taste life, experience life.  Kill the unborn child before it knows life, because when it does know life – it probably will want to be alive more than dead.  And, oh, what a “burden” it then would become for its mother.

Isn’t there a correlation between those children that are neglected, abused and unloved with having parents that never wanted them in the first place?  Isn’t it true that for those parents who have an unplanned child, there is more hostility and resentment from its parents, and therefore more abuse, physical and/or emotional?  In other words, for those parents who plan a child, are they planning that child so that once it is born they can abuse it, neglect it, and hate it all its life?  Does that make sense?

Children who are abused, neglected and unloved are more than likely to be born to parents who, while they wanted the sex at the time, either didn’t use protection, or used inferior contraception, thus a pregnancy occurred, and a life was created.  Did Shannon plan her pregnancy, or did she and her husband just have sex one night and carelessly forget the protection?

Perhaps it is Shannon who is trying to spare herself, not her unborn child, from grief and heartache.  Is is possible that Shannon, and many other women would support killing  a child in the womb – abortion – not because they think they are doing the unborn child any favors, but to do themselves a favor, to spare themselves from some unforeseen tragedy that may or may not occur sometime in the future?  Is Shannon killing her unborn child as a way to shield herself, and hide herself, from some shame or guilt of her own making, and using her unborn child as the scapegoat?  Who the hell in their right mind kills an unborn child, and deprives it of life, because of some overblown fear it might grow up and be deprived of a good life?

Shannon is the one who is being sick and twisted, and ought to have her tubes tied by law.  Would you want a woman like this around your kids?  How safe are her own children?  If Shannon felt like killing one of her unborn children because of a dreamt-up fear it might not enjoy its life, what is going to happen to Shannon’s children on those days they feel depressed and sad, or have a tummy ache or a headache?  Is Shannon going wish she had aborted them as well?  After-all, when one is not feeling well in the head or the mind they too are being deprived of something at that particular time; they too are feeling neglected and unloved, and they are abusing themselves over their own frustrations of feeling depressed.  Shannon’s children, then, by her own standards, are perfect candidates for post-birth abortions.

Says Shannon:

There are also situations, in my opinion, where abortion is the only humane path to take for both mother and child. I remain firmly in the pro-choice camp not just because a woman should have the “right to choose” (although that is a powerful platform for me), but because every child deserves quality of life and when a child is unwanted there’s a much higher risk he’ll perpetuate the problem, having unwanted children of his own, if he even survives childhood.

Ladies and gentlemen – what real favors, if any, are we doing for unborn children by killing them in the womb, by depriving them of life, by not giving them an opportunity to live, by ending their lives, sparing them, the agony of life itself?  Aren’t we really killing the child in the womb to spare ourselves?  And aren’t we using trivialities like “neglect, abuse and being unloved” to satisfy our own guilt for having so cowardly killed a human being in the womb?

Shannon isn’t trying to spare an unborn child.  She isn’t trying to be humane.  She has clearly demonstrated herself to be too selfish and too shallow a human being to think about anyone but herself.  It is because of women, like Shannon, so many millions of babies have been aborted.  It is because of women, like Shannon, this evil monstrosity continues, and why so many like-minded evil and twisted women proudly join Shannon in their fight to keep abortion alive.

But, keep this in mind – how else is abortion kept alive, other than by taking away a human life?  And for what?  Humanity is not perfect, and every single human being is, has, and will have to deal with all manner of calamities throughout the course of their lives.  Shannon’ solution is to kill them in the womb before they ever have a chance to encounter a problem in life.  The problem with that is, by killing a child in the womb before it experiences any “problems” they will never have the chance to solve those problems, and move on with their lives, stronger than they were before.  Is that rational?

Do any of us really love our own children as much as Shannon purportedly loves her children that we wish we would have just killed them in the womb to spare them all the grief and suffering they may, and to some extend would, endure throughout their lives?  Would any of us have been born, if we all had parents who thought so stupidly as Shannon?  Would there even be a future with children in it, if we all thought as Shannon does, and began systematically killing our children in the womb?  Is this the best reason for why anyone would want to be pro-“choice”?

Sandra Fluke: Call Her A Slut, Call Her Round-Heeled – But Don’t Call Her As A Credible Source Of Information

Sandra Fluke is the young “lady” at the center of so much controversy surrounding her blunt testimony about the “need” for birth control and contraception, and why we the taxpayers ought to pay for it, and for her and anyone else to have as much sex as they want.  The issue is not whether or not Sandra ought to be having sex – from a moral point of view she shouldn’t.  Never mind that, for the moment.

Sandra is complaining that the cost of contraception is preventing her from having sex, and others as well.  Rather than take on a second job, presuming she has one job under her belt already, she is addressing lawmakers on Capitol Hill in an attempt to sway them (we the taxpayer) into paying for her promiscuity and sexual escapades.  The crux of her testimony is that she is being denied as many sexual encounters as she wants because she cannot afford the cost of the contraception for each individual encounter.  So, what to do about that?

That anyone would be offended when Sandra is rightfully called a slut shows how much we have devolved as Americans.  Would anyone have sat before congress fifty years ago and cried to its members about how unfair it is that with contraception being so expensive, having sex has become a luxury few can afford?  Of course not.  And although there were women of ill repute back then, they at least had sense enough not to air their dirty laundry to members of congress.

Sandra is no role model – or is she?  Would you want your daughter to emulate Sandra?  Would you hope your son would fall in love with a Sandra Fluke?  Just how many sexual encounters, and with how many partners, does Sandra desire to be with before she gets married?  Well, if we have to pay for her contraception, we have a right to know all the details, don’t we?

You might be asking, what was Sandra even doing at this hearing?  This was a hearing, after-all, on Obama’s contraception mandate – a law that would force Catholic and religious institutions to provide birth control, contraception, and pregnancy ended services against their moral and religious values and convictions.  Sandra was denied a seat in an earlier hearing.  This was then a make-up, for Sandra.  So – should religious institutions be forced to pay for contraception because some of its students are hornier than others, and their extra-curricular activities are draining their wallets?

Sandra is making a mess of “women’s rights”, and she probably doesn’t even know it.  Her arrogance, her condescending attitude showed America that liberal feminists are weak, pathetic and small-minded; the lack of anything remotely intelligent in her argument showed America that liberal feminists are not smart enough to debate, and when they do they revert back into playing the victim card.  In other words, it’s not Sandra’s fault she can’t afford the cost of contraception – it’s the high cost of college tuition which is draining her bank account.  If only the “evil” Republicans would give her more grant money for college, and if only “evil” Republicans would give her money for contraception, she could afford the high tuition costs and have all the sex she wanted.  But because Republican lawmakers, who are predominately male, hate Sandra because she is a woman, Sandra is therefore forced to succumb to the terrible burden of either having to pay for her own contraception, or to give up some of the sex she thought she had a Constitutional right to have, and to have the taxpayer pay for.

This is how liberal feminists think.  They had it real easy in the 90’s under Bill Clinton.  Since then, their fantasy world has come crashing down upon them as waves and waves of new conservatives win in local, state and national elections across America, and begin to implement common sense legislation – like paying for ones own contraception and not demanding taxpayers pay for it, or forcing religious institutions into becoming pimps.

What else has changed, which may be a shock to Sandra, and all liberal feminists, is how much more difficult it is for them to simply shout “women’s rights”, or “women’s health” or “right to privacy” and have everyone fall into line behind them.  Because when they bring up such slogans, what they are really talking about is abortion and the killing of an unborn child – and America is wise to their shenanigans.  At least, wiser than say ten or fifteen years ago.

Liberal feminists are not talking about, not fighting for, contraception which is intended to prevent a pregnancy from occurring.  Liberal feminists want the contraception which ends the pregnancy after it has resulted and a human being has been created.  There is a vast and fundamental difference between the two kinds of contraception, and it is for the latter liberal feminists are demanding taxpayers pay for, and religious institutions cover and provide services for against their religious convictions.  Nobody is trying to take away birth control or contraception which is intended to prevent a pregnancy.  But one would never know that listening to the MSM, or getting their news from HuffPost, Daily Kos, or any liberal media outlet which reports propaganda rather than facts.

As much of a flout and a floozy as Sandra is, Sandra Fluke was the best liberal feminists could do.  If all she could come up with as to why the contraception mandate is a good thing, and why it ought to remain law, is so she can engage in as much free sex as she wants, and not have to pay a penny for it, or for the abortions – what does that tell you about the state of liberal feminism in 2012?

The Contraception Mandate: Liberal Feminists Don’t Know What They Are Talking About

Arianna Nation contributor, Soraya Chemaly, has apparently renounced her Catholic religion, if she was ever an actual Catholic to begin with.  She has no problem with her, or the government forcing its will on the Catholic Church, but dare the Catholic Church push its doctrine on its own members and that pisses Soraya off.  The contraception mandate, and the Catholic Church’s handling of it, particularly its refusal to be intimidated by the Obama Administration, and goaded into doing something that is perpendicular to its teachings, irks Soraya, all liberal feminists, immensely.  She is probably clicking her heels over the rejection of the Blunt amendment which would have protected the Catholic Church from government intrusion and unconstitutional force into its religious freedoms.

Soraya’s liberalism, and her liberal feminism, has blinded her so severely she believes that what the Catholic Church is doing is tantamount to sexism, being anti-woman and trying to control a woman and what she thinks she has the freedom, the choice and the Constitutional right to do with her body.

Writes Soraya:

“At its core, this debate is about control.  And not just birth control. Either you are willing to support and participate in a culture in which men, refusing to accept women as fully human, use a perverted claim of divine right to control women and their bodies, or you don’t.”

Liberal feminists insist, for reasons that are either impossible to understand, or for the simplest of explanations, that men, and male politicians in particular, are using birth control and contraception as a means to control women, and that is the one, the only explanation for why the GOP in the House and Senate, which is predominately male, is opposing Obama’s contraception mandate.

We, as conservatives, who think not with our penises or vaginas, but with our brains, don’t accept Soraya’s premise.  It is childish, foolish and inconsistent with rationality and the real world.

In fact, Soraya’s statement is so stupid and idiotic, incredibly wrong-headed and ridiculously easy to explain in the plainest of contexts – namely that the contraception mandate is being opposed not to control women (and presumably their sexual habits, wants, desires, etc. which liberal feminists wrongly fear is at the center of this debate) but rather to control an out of control government attempting to dictate and force its policies, unconstitutional by the way, on the American people and on religious institutions which do not want government forcing them into providing services they find morally objectionable.

Soraya, like all liberal feminists, think with their vaginas, rather than their brains.  Conversely, conservative women and feminists tend to use their brains more often than not.  (which is why we, as conservatives, tend to win the debates more often than not)  To Soraya, because she is a liberal feminist, and a perverted one herself, having access to birth control and contraception, including abortion is an absolute necessity in her bleak world.  Liberal feminists, like Soraya, thinking only with their vaginas, cannot accept they are already “fully human” unless they are able to have all the free sex they want without having to endure the consequences – pregnancy, in other words.  The Catholic Church frowns upon that kind of sex, and so it has become an enemy of Soraya.

Contraception and birth control means, to liberal feminists, they can engage in any type of risky, unsafe, loose sexual behavior they may desire and crave and want to participate in, and if pregnancy does occur, if a baby is created, unplanned as it were, killing it, disposing of it from her body must be a “woman’s right” and for her “health”.  And the “freer” that contraception is, the “freer” perverts like Soraya are to throw their bodies lustfully and passionately into the arms of strange men without clearly thinking about what it is they are doing to themselves and their bodies in the process – because all they hear, all they sense, all they feel is wrapped up and intertwined deep within their vaginas.

Writes Soraya:

“For me, equality — for everyone — and the way I want my children to understand their place in the world outweighed my commitment to a faith, which, no matter how much real good it does in the world, does more harm by its failure to recognize the fundamental humanity of its female adherents. This isn’t about freedom of religion; it’s about freedom from religion.”

In other words, “equality”, to Soraya, means being just as sexually perverted and demented as men can be, and that the Catholic Church does not recognize or accept her, or any woman’s prerogative to be a sexual pervert frustrates Soraya – and it is more than just sexual frustration.  The “failure to recognize the fundamental humanity of its female adherents” is not at issue.  It’s “failure” to be co-opted by the federal government and forced into providing services which will ultimately kill an unborn child already created in the womb is the issue.  Soraya, thinking only with her vagina, has abandoned her faith because it dares to have morals when Soraya desires to be immoral.  And presumably she will be teaching her children to be immoral as well.

Soraya asks:

“But seriously, how obviously violent do things have to get before we learn the lesson that powerful, all-male environments with perverted notions of sex, sexuality and gender have damaging and corrosive effects on the whole society?”

The more liberal feminists, like Soraya, open up their vaginas, freely, to men, the more men will come to disrespect women, and the more “perverted notion of sex” men will have.  Women also.  Men who come to expect women will be loose and immoral will naturally act more violent towards them, especially those women who refuse them.  Women, like Soraya, are giving men mixed messages about women and women’s sexuality.  Either women want men to behave as perverts towards them, or with respect and dignity.

If Soraya wants men to treat women with dignity, that will only happen when more women begin to respect themselves and their bodies as equally as they demand men do.  Which means, keep your clothes on, your legs closed and don’t worry about the Catholic Church or government refusing to acquiesce to your sexual delights by accommodating you with free contraception and birth control – you won’t be using it anyway.  But if you, as a woman, still choose to engage in behavior that is unbecoming of a woman, which does lead to “perverted notions of sex” nobody, not the government, the Catholic Church, nor right-wing conservatives are going to tell you what to do with your body and your vagina.  But the aftermath, the consequences, should there be any – if you, as a woman, expect and demand equality, stop running to “the man” to provide you with something to make the problem go away.  Woman up!

Soraya sums it up for herself this way:

“For me, it’s simple. Why on earth would I continue to pay any attention to men — and they are all men, even when they have conservative lay women fighting their battles — who expect me to not only believe wrong, perverted, ideas about me, my gender and sexuality, but also ask me to transmit that information to my children? To stick with the pre-modern theme at hand, I’d sooner flay myself.

If the Catholic Church is wrong in its belief, that means killing an unborn child is moral, and making the Catholic Church and the American taxpayers pay for that killing is also moral.  And since that is irrational on so many levels, we must conclude it is Soraya who is the pervert.  And Soraya is both sexually perverted and morally perverted, as are all liberal feminists who only think with their vaginas.

Women who want men to treat them as women, and as equals, ought to think with their brains – that is something both men and women have in common.  Men may want to get into a woman’s vagina, but an intelligent woman will know how to subdue his masculine urges.  But for those women who open themselves, and their vaginas, up are of course opening themselves, and their vaginas, up to more than they can comprehend or probably deal with.

For Soraya, being “equal” to men means being just as sexually perverted as men and not having to deal with the consequences of a one night stand and sex with multiple partners.  For Soraya, being a woman means thinking with her vagina, rather than her brain.  For Soraya, it’s birth control rather than self control.

What kind of man with any respect for women would want to be married to a woman who has less respect for herself than he has for her?  How would that marriage work out?

Finally! The Law That Let’s You Kill Your Baby – After It’s Born

Infanticide!  Margaret Sanger may have dreamed of such a law which allowed for the killing of babies after they had been born, days, even weeks, perhaps as long as months.  It is certainly a dream, a concept, and a passion, rooted in bowels of liberalism.  The law that allows the parents of a child born, say with Down Syndrome or Sickle Cell Anemia, which has been championed and rigorously fought for, albeit deceptively, quietly, under the radar of most people who might have a complaint of two about it, is here – almost, anyway.  But such a law is nigh on to becoming reality sooner than it has ever been.  We are now in the penultimate stage of seeing that law created.  So near to becoming a law is it, people are openly discussing the idea without regret or remorse, without fear of repudiation, without any part of their conscience telling them (getting in they way of telling them) just how immoral such a law would be.  Even Barack Obama supports it.  They call it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.  But infanticide is still what it is.

Just who is proposing a law which allows for the killing of a baby after it has been born?  Why, “ethicists” of course.  Two, in fact, by the names of Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who have written an article detailing their modest “proposal” in the Journal of Medical Ethics.  The only difference between this proposal, and the one made long, long ago by Jonathon Swift is that Swift was joking, using satire to illustrate his point.  As of yet, neither Alberto or Francesca have shouted “April Fools!”.

They argue, that for the good of the family, and of society, such babies which would become, and would have the potential to be, a burden, a drain, a never-ending cause of emotional distress for family members, neighbors and society at large, it must be acceptable to kill the baby after it has been born.

They argue babies born with malady’s, diseases, incurable inflictions and where the quality of life is diminished, even slightly, there is justification and warrant for killing the baby.  The cost to treat whatever ailment the baby might be born with is enough, these two “ethicists” insist to commit infanticide.

This all leads to an interesting, yet disturbing question.  If a baby born with some form of illness can legally be killed after its birth, why then, would the law not eventually come to include infants as young as two or three years of age who develop a condition that, although it is treatable, may be too costly for the parents?  Why not young kids at age five or six?  Can we kill kids at nine or ten?  How about killing kids who are going through puberty and who have become, to us, too much to handle?  What about all those kids who join gangs and sell drugs, bully other kids, kill other people in gang wars?  Why can’t we kill them too?

How about children who get below a “C” average in school.  They obviously are not going to grow up to be productive citizens.  Why not spare them, and society, from the inevitable.  How about the homeless?  There is your solution for that right there – infanticide for the homeless!  The elderly?  Killing the elderly has been a fantasy for generations of science fiction writers and readers.  Why not make the final leap into bold new territory.  In other words, if we can legally kill a baby after it has been born, where does it stop and where ought it to stop?

Alberto and Francesca argue that a new-born baby is not yet a person, and thus does not deserve to be recognizes as a person.  They say:

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

In other words, anyone, at any age, from birth up until the point of death – even at the ripe old age of 100 – who cannot care for themselves would be subject to an “ethical” disposal.  Both “ethicists” reject the term euthanasia:

As the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated.

Ladies and gentleman – do you grasp just how many millions of people cannot “properly take care of themselves” in this world we live in?  And if we leave the definition of what it means to “properly take care of ones self” in the hands of “ethicisits” like Alberto and Francesca, how many millions more will be subjected to “after-birth abortion”?  In other words, do we really think this move begins and ends with newborns?  Legally killing people who are a “detriment to society” is, and has been, a goal of liberalism for decades.  That includes the homeless, the poor, those with any infirmities; it includes runaways, kids and adults with any type of social disorder, alcoholics and drug addicts – the list is endless.  Well, by their standards, these “ethicists” would even consider illegal aliens a “detriment to society”.  And while conservatives would only have them deported, liberals would actually have them killed.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life.

So what happens if none of these “circumstances” develop in a child for a few years?  Is it the parents fault that the kid didn’t get sick quick enough so they could kill it as soon after birth as they might have wanted?  What happens when a child of any age develops something of a nature which “puts the well-being of the family at risk”?  Why should parents of a preteen, or a teen, be forced by law to suffer through their children’s maladies?

You know, it is a fact college tuition is expensive.   And getting those braces, “even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life” after their teeth had been straightened is still quite an expense.  What about all the unforeseen accidents, falling off ones bike, roller skates or skateboard, for instance?  How about all the sports injuries a child incurs throughout his or her life?  What happens if a child, a teen, is involved in a car accident and is paralyzed?  Don’t any of these “circumstances” quality to be “considered acceptable instances where” regardless of at what age, they are “putting the well-being of the family at risk”?  Money is tight, Obama’s economy is in utter chaos and the “food stamp President” has no idea how to turn it around.  Obama supports abortion; he supports infanticide; he supports euthanasia.  What else, what other “methods” of disposing of living human beings would he support?

The idea of killing babies after they have been born is not a new one.  Such practices had been in use thousands of years ago.  The Romans used to put their babies on a hill-top and leave them there, exposed to the harsh weather conditions and animals that would eat them.  Margaret Sanger, pride of Planned Parenthood, and its founder, supported eugenics, abortion, euthanasia, any method to “get rid of” the unsavory, the people who were a drain on society and who were ruining society, from her point of view, and for everyone else.

What these two “ethicists” in Australia have proposed is nothing new.  What is new is that their proposal has been published at all, and has been published in a magazine which purportedly deals in “medical ethics”.  What is new is that anyone would take these two seriously.  What is new is that many people do take them seriously.   Do you want to venture a guess as to how many people who take them seriously are liberal, as opposed to conservative?

Ladies and gentleman – this 2012 election is really about life versus death.  Democrats and liberals support ideas like abortion, euthanasia, and what these two “ethicists” call “after-birth abortion”, but which we know to be infanticide.  Barack Obama himself supports infanticide.  Conservatives value life and fight for it, which is why we are so vilified by the MSM and the Left.  We accept their criticism because we know what we are doing is right.  Either life has value or it doesn’t.  Liberals don’t value life.

Do you need any more proof that Democrats are trying to kill you, all of us?  Conservatives are working hard to save lives, at all ages, from pre-birth through death.  We are working just as hard to save lives as liberals are working to kill lives.  The more Democrats we elect to congress the harder we must work – because the more Democrats we elect to congress the more lives that are put in danger.  Democrats would support an “after-birth abortion” law.  They support abortion and infanticide; they support euthanasia and mercy killing.  Why would anyone disagree Democrats would be opposed to a law that lets parents kill their child after it has been born?

Which is why the apt slogan for this 2012 election really is – Vote Democrat and Die!

Terry O’Neill, NOW President, Wants Your Baby To Die!

Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization Of Women, (referred lovingly by Rush Limbaugh as the NAGS), lost in her own translation, and having abandoned all sense of reason, is trying desperately to paint conservatives as anti-woman and anti- women’s “health”.  While this is a lie, and an absurd one at that, what is not a lie is that Terry O’Neill, and other liberal pro-abortion feminists, are doing everything they can to undermine a woman right to knowledge and education, particularly in the case of pregnancy and abortion, and how much information women are provided about their unborn baby.

Terry and her ilk don’t want women informed at all about what is going on inside their own bodies, which is why she, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and all her pro-abortion liberal feminists and allies are up in arms over any law that would delay a woman from seeking an abortion.  Ultrasounds are the new battle, which Terry describes as “violating a woman’s body and rights”.  It’s yet another pathetic and disgraceful attempt by pro-abortion supporters to remove any necessary and imperative obstacles from a woman who is seeking to end a pregnancy out of emotional turmoil rather than because there is any real medical or health threat to her life.

Writes Terry:

“For decades, the radical right has been chipping away at women’s access to reproductive health care.”

Translation:  The “radical” Right has been chipping away at access to abortion on demand as a means of birth control, and using abortion, which is the killing of an unborn child, for purposes other than to save the life of the mother.

“After the 2010 elections, these attacks escalated into an outright War on Women.”

Translation:  These so-called “attacks”, which are indeed a “war” were never about or against women.  Rather these “wars” are all about ensuring women have the right to know everything about their pregnancy and their unborn child, including the fact that their unborn child is actually a living human being.  Ultrasounds prove that by snapping a picture of the fetus, which is clearly identifiable, any women looking at it can clearly discern a human being in that picture.  Terry knows a fetus is in fact a living human being,  But she would rather women still have the right to kill it, and she is worried to death that if a woman who is contemplating an abortion is shown an image of her actual child inside her womb, that woman will change her mind about having the abortion.  Stuff like that scares Terry, all liberal pro-abortion feminists, and pro-culture of death liberals, to death.

“Now, the Republican presidential primaries are offering a disturbing glimpse into the supposed conservative vision for this country. In this right-wing utopia, women will no longer be able to exercise the right to control their bodies, plan their families or safeguard their own health.”

Translation:  The “utopia” we envision is one in which women have been provided the right information and education, which is currently being denied them at Planned Parenthood, to make an informed decision about abortion, what abortion really is – the killing of an unborn child – and to come to the realization, on her own, that having an abortion for emotional reasons is not the best response for her or her baby.  Our “utopia” absolutely includes safeguards, put in place to protect unborn life from being wantonly, maliciously and intentionally destroyed.  The unborn obviously do not have a voice of their own.  We, who are pro-life, need to be their voice and speak on their behalf.  Conservatives are not interested in “controlling women’s bodies”.  We are interested in ensuring that the unborn child, which is also a “body” has protection and rights too, namely the right to live.

“The church and the state will tell women what is best for them, and religious entities’ “liberty” will consistently trump individual women’s right to live and work free from discrimination and in accordance with their own religious and moral beliefs.”

Translation:  Terry wants the government to force religious institutions to provide medication and services it finds morally objectionable.  That is what Obama’s contraception mandate is all about and why you are hearing about it constantly on the news.  The church is not trying to tell “women what is best for them”.  Any church certainly tells its own constituents what is best for them, according to their own doctrines and beliefs, which each member voluntary accepts as part of belonging to that particular church.  It is Terry, Barack Obama and the democrat Party – not the church – which is attempting to force itself and its will on the American people.

“Much of the current he-man chest thumping is done for the benefit of voters who might be swayed to cast their ballots for the GOP based largely on social issues. And, as demonstrated in Virginia this week, conservative politicians are perfectly capable of putting on the brakes when proceeding with a piece of their anti-woman agenda appears to be backfiring.”

Translation:  Not only is there plenty of “He-man thumping” going in, there is plenty of “She-woman” thumping going on as well.  Terry still doesn’t understand that there are tens of millions of women who are pro-life.  Terry still believes, erroneously, that abortion is a woman’s right issue; that access to abortion somehow empowers women and creates equality among the sexes.  The only thing abortion, and access to abortion, does is kills an unborn child.  That is abortion’s only purpose.  That some politicians, including Republicans, have caved is an indication of their own political cowardice, and is more evidence they, as in the case of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, are more concerned with saving their own worthless political life than unborn life.

“Still, the right-wing commitment to keeping women in check is surprisingly strong and reveals a frightening disrespect, even contempt for women who aren’t sufficiently submissive.”

Translation:  Our “commitment” to the unborn, their right to live and protecting them from harm, is the only thing we, pro-life conservatives, are trying to “keep in check”.  What can be so “frightening” about that?  And what can be so “contemptible” about that?  Here, again, Terry views abortion as women’s empowerment; that taking the right to abortion away from women somehow diminishes their role in society and makes them that much more “submissive”.  This is another area, for which liberal feminist, anti-male, Terry O’Neill just doesn’t understand, or want to understand.  To conservatives, being “submissive” is a two-way street, which includes men, and husbands, being just as equally “submissive” to women, and their wives, as women, and wives, need to be to men, and their husbands.  That is equality.  What Terry wants is superiority, and for women to be superior, to have special rights which includes the right to kill an unborn child.

“Turning the clock back includes shaming women for their sexuality and punishing them for terminating a pregnancy (which is still legal, by the way). This brings us to one of the more degrading tactics up the radical-right sleeve: mandatory ultrasound laws.”

Translation:  Our goal, as pro-life conservatives, is indeed to “turn back the clock” to a time when abortion was virtually never a consideration used to end a pregnancy.  Whether “punishing” a woman for “terminating her pregnancy” – killing her unborn child – is a punishable offense in some places has nothing whatsoever to do with “shaming women for their sexuality”.  Whatever “shame” was involved in the past, and past dealings with regards to unintended, unplanned pregnancies, when a woman or girl became pregnant, and was not married, no longer exists in America today and is not longer a plausible scenario.  Women, including conservative and pro-life women, have no intention of reverting back to the days of old and “shaming” women and girls by sending them to see an “aunt in Boston” or to a convent, a shabby, run-down women’s shelter or throwing them out of their house, or in prison, or whatever other horror stories Terry O’Neill is irrationally worried will happen.  That part of America is passed.  We, pro-life conservatives, have evolved.  It is Terry who is still living in the past.

“Under these laws, before a woman can undergo an abortion procedure, a doctor must perform an ultrasound and offer the woman an opportunity to view the image of the fetus or hear a detailed description.”

Translation:  Well, since this is exactly the intent of the laws being proposed, no translation needed.  Why is Terry so fearful and terrified of ultrasounds?  A woman viewing an image of her unborn child could very well become teary eyed, have a change of heart and stop the abortion from occurring.  What other reason is there for opposing an ultrasound?  It’s invasive?  Absolute BS.  How invasive is the actual abortion itself?  And if a woman is willing to undergo an invasive procedure to kill her unborn child, why the hell would she be unwilling to undergo a so-called  “invasive” procedure to snap a picture of the unborn child she is about to kill?

“As ultrasounds are rarely medically necessary prior to an abortion, these laws exist to demean the woman and make the procedure more expensive to boot. Ultrasound costs range from $300 to $700, and the woman, of course, is typically expected to pay for this state-mandated exam.”

Translation:  Of course ultrasounds are not “medically necessary”.  But they are nonetheless imperative.  They do not “exist to demean women”, but to educate and inform women to the fact there is an unborn child in their womb, not a blob of tissue or collection of cells.  Terry is not worried about the cost of the ultrasound because of its expense.  The cost of the abortion itself is roughly the same cost as an ultrasound.  What Terry is worried about is the profit lost from the abortion.  A woman shown an image of the child, just moments away from execution, may very well opt to save her child from permanent destruction.  If that happens, Planned Parenthood and the abortionist don’t make any money.  On the other hand, think of the millions of dollars Planned Parenthood could reap and profit from, from the ultrasounds themselves!  There’s an angle even pro-abortion supporters never thought of.

“But the most disturbing aspect of these laws is that in the vast majority of abortions, which occur far too early in pregnancy for an external (“jelly on the belly”) ultrasound to produce an image, the ultrasound must be transvaginal — i.e., a long wand-like ultrasound probe must be inserted deep into the woman’s vagina. This is, quite simply, state-sponsored rape. Even the FBI recognized last year, as most states did long ago, that vaginal penetration without a woman’s consent is rape.”

Translation: Terry fears “a long wand-like ultrasound probe” being “inserted deep into a woman’s vagina”.  And she calls that not just “rape”, but “state sponsored rape”.  Hmm.  How exactly is the actual abortion performed?  Is nothing similar to a “wand-like” instrument “inserted deep into a woman’s vagina” to extricate the unborn child?  In other words, whether it is an instrument to take a picture of an unborn child, or an instrument to remove and kill it, there is some type of instrument being “inserted deep into a woman’s vagina”.  In that event, we either have “state sponsored rape”, (which is in itself an over-reaction) or we have state sponsored killing of an unborn child.  Which is the lessor of two evils?

Terry O’Neill is acting through emotions, rather than through reality or rationality.  So are all liberal pro-abortion feminists, and all liberals who support abortion.  The point of having an ultrasound is to empower women, to provide a woman seeking an abortion with as much information as she can have to make an informed decision.  Terry O’Neil, although she says she is pro-women’s rights, nonetheless would rather women be left in the dark, forbidden important knowledge, restricted from access to real health information, and “shamed” for wanting to know as much about her pregnancy and her unborn child as she can know.

Terry O’Neill is the real rapist here.  Terry is raping all women of valuable and critical information pertaining to their pregnancies.  Terry is the one “inserting” her “long wand-like probe” into women – not into their vaginas, but into their brains and their minds, and with that probe Terry is sucking out every bit, and every last vestige of, woman-hood and what it means to be a woman, changing women into pro-abortion feminist robots that are easy to control and manipulate and easy for her, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and her NOW group to force into their “submission”.

For all women who want to retain their true independence, want true empowerment, want true equality, want to control their own bodies –  choose the pro-life side.  Men who are pro-abortion have little respect for women, and women who are pro-abortion have little respect for themselves.  Conversely, men who are pro-life have enough respect for women, and more respect for women than men who are pro-abortion, to keep their hands off women and to keep themselves restrained.  And women who are pro-life will be less sexually active before marriage than women who are pro-abortion, because women who are pro-life, who are empowered with knowledge, will understand that the more often they have sex, regardless of how “safe” it is, there is always the possibility of becoming pregnant.

In other words, if women want men to be more submissive, if women really want to be more dominant – take back, and take control of, your sexuality.  Don’t spread it around and cheapen it and yourself.  Men love “easy” women.  But that doesn’t necessarily mean they love women.

How is Terry O’Neill, President of NOW, helping women by cheapening and degrading them, their sexuality, for the sole discretion and delight of men?  What is “pro-woman” about that?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: