Thursday, December 29, 2011

8 Ways Fascist Feminists Are Ruining America’s Women



Cassy Fiano

American women have some of the best lives in the world. We can literally do whatever we want. American women can go to school where we want, we can go to college, we can work wherever we want, we can marry whoever we want, and we can choose to lead whatever kind of life we want to lead. Millions of women in oppressed countries around the world cannot even imagine the freedom that American women so enjoy — and take for granted. We’ve come a long way in less than one hundred short years, but a lot of women can’t see that.

We’re constantly told that we’re victims of an invisible patriarchy, that we’re slaves to our hormones, that without abortion on demand we can’t fully be women, that we don’t need a man but we need the government. The people that tell women these lies are the same people who pretend to be fighting for us, who have hijacked feminism: the fascist feminists. Whereas once feminists fought for equality, today the femisogynists fight for things like taxpayer funded abortion and universal health care. They fight for women to be able to sleep around like men and ignore the consequences. And most of the time, women don’t even know they’re being manipulated and lied to. Thankfully, once the lies are exposed, it’s easy to see the con.

Here are eight ways that fascist feminists are ruining America’s women.

8. Encouraging Promiscuity

Once upon a time, men had to earn sex with a woman. He would have to take her on a series of dates. He would have to enter into a relationship with her to prove his commitment to her. He would have to invest time, money, and emotions into their relationship. The woman held all of the power. Now, men don’t even have to take women onto dates. Often, dating happens after a couple has started sleeping together regularly. Men barely have to put any effort into it anymore, women just give it up hours after meeting random guys at a bar or a party.

This, according to the femisogynists, is called being “empowered”. It’s being in charge of your sexuality. As far as they’re concerned, all that you need to do is get yourself some birth control and you’re A-OK. Emotional consequences? STDs? No problem! As long as you don’t get pregnant, sleeping around is just fine, even if you’re still in high school.

The problem? Most women don’t feel this way, and especially not young girls. Two-thirds of teenage girls who have sex in high school go on to regret it. Teenagers who have sex are much more likely to be depressed or suicidal. 1/4 of sexually active teens have an STD. A whopping 8,000 teens get an STD daily. And, even when you use contraception, pregnancy is still a possibility. Teenage mothers have higher likelihoods of poverty and dependence on welfare. But do the fascist feminists care about any of this? Nope! It’s sexual freedom, baby. Who cares about the consequences? If it feels good, just do it. The problem is that sex has become so devalued that celibacy has actually become trendy. Women are realizing that sleeping around all the time with tons of different men does not bring you strength or empowerment or freedom or love. But femisogynists don’t want women to know that.

Feministing founder Jessica Valenti wrote an entire book about it called The Purity Myth. Expecting women to be abstinent is ridiculous, virginity is weird, and fathers wanting their daughters not to have sex is creepy. But casual one-night stands? Hook-ups? SO awesome! Just use a condom, because they’re totally foolproof. Abstain? Hold out? So for our grandparents’ generation and un-empowered, frigid, prude chicks.

7. Sanctioning Victimhood

If a woman loses to a man in an election, it’s because she’s a girl. If a woman doesn’t get a promotion, it’s the patriarchy trying to keep her down. If a man winks at a woman on the street, he’s just trying to keep her in her place. If a woman gets accidentally pregnant, her life is forever ruined and her only option is to get an abortion.

These are some of the attitudes you’ll find in the fascist feminist set.

Rather than encouraging women to take control of their own lives and be truly empowered, the femisogynists are forever trying to make sure that women always wallow in victimhood. Everything is sexist, everything, from jeans to office dress codes to the obvious fact that men like to look at boobs. They complain that there aren’t equal numbers of men and women committing suicide. Even having babies is considered sexist (but more on that later). Radical feminists see sexism everywhere, and the patriarchy is always trying to keep women down. But how does this do women any favors?

The reality is that sexism is not everywhere, and women cannot be truly empowered if they see themselves as consummate victims. The reality is that the victim act is really just an excuse for fascist feminists to be greedy little whiners who get special treatment.

6. Dabbling In Misandry

Feminism has gotten a nasty reputation. Radical feminists are to blame for this of course, and they whine about it incessantly. Ask anyone what they think of when they hear the word “feminism”, and they’ll almost always think of “man-haters”. And there’s a good reason for it, too. When radical feminists hijacked feminism, a great many of the people involved in the radical feminist movement do indeed hate men.

A large part of the man-hating movement from the fascist feminists involves domestic violence and rape, which are, of course, horrible. The vast majority of men do not beat or rape their wives or daughters and find men that do despicable. But fascist feminists paint all men with a broad brush, so that even men who don’t engage in domestic violence or rape are still somehow responsible for it. And if they aren’t angry, violent oppressors, then they are useless, worthless creatures who are inferior to women. You will find some of the most awful vitriol aimed at men in the fascist feminist movement. The depths of the anger that these women possess is disturbing. Maybe they didn’t have a father growing up, maybe they had a boyfriend who did beat them, but for whatever reason, many of the fascist feminists truly hate men. The only men they approve of are feminized-beta male-Michael Cera-types, who I guess pose no threat to them because they’ll roll over and do anything a woman wants them to do.

It’s sad and ridiculous that femisogynists spend so much time accusing American men of oppressing women, and then completely ignore the actual oppression women face in the Middle East. The radical feminists are almost completely silent about that. They’ll throw it a bone every now and again, but by and large, they ignore it. Women in the Middle East are raped and have no way of getting justice for it; they are sold into slavery through forced marriages when they are still children. Oftentimes they cannot get an education or work among men. They cannot wear what they want, practice whatever faith they want, or make their own decisions. And this is all because of actual sexist men. But radical feminists ignore them and set their sights on American men, some of the most enlightened men on the planet.

Ask any American man who has a daughter, a sister, or a wife what he wants for American women, and most of them will say that they want girls to be able to get an education and be whatever they want to be. In this last presidential election, Hillary Clinton came extremely close to winning the Democratic nomination for president — that alone shows how far we have come. But fascist feminists ignore that, because they have an anti-male agenda to push.

5. Destroying Chivalry

One of the easiest ways a man can show respect towards a woman is through chivalrous actions. Opening a door, pulling out a chair, giving up a seat for a lady… actions like these all show deference and respect for a woman. Being willing to protect a woman and put yourself at risk for her shows her value and worth. But for some reason, chivalry has come under attack. Men don’t practice chivalry anymore, to the disappointment of women everywhere.

Why not? Well, according to a poll taken of college men, it’s because of radical feminism. Chivalry has been dubbed sexist. There’s an attitude from women that they don’t need a man. Women act as if chivalrous actions are somehow disrespectful. So why should men continue to be chivalrous? Many, many women are completely unappreciative when men treat them like a lady. And, according to the femisogynists, things like holding doors open for women are totally sexist. Fascist feminists see chivalry as dated, sexist, and demeaning. It doesn’t matter that most women yearn for it deep down. They miss romance, they miss dating, and they miss being treated with respect and honor. How many times do women cry on the phone to their friends that they can’t find a man who treats them well? Killing chivalry has a lot to do with that. Women have been manipulated and conditioned to see chivalry as something antiquated and disrespectful, so they spurn it when they see it. They still crave it though. They’re wanting something better.

Chivalry gives a woman power, the very thing that femisogynists claim to be after. If a man is going out of his way to be chivalrous towards a women, it’s because he respects her, it’s because he sees value in her, and it’s because he wants to show that he is worthy of her. Chivalry is actually empowering to women, it elevates them, but it’s missing in our relationships today because fascist feminists destroyed it. It says a lot more about the worldview of the radical feminists than it does about the merits of chivalry.

4. Attacking Motherhood

What would women say their most important role is as a woman? Could it be high-powered careerwoman? Sexually liberated minx? Pro-abortion activist? Maybe these are the most important roles a radical feminist could play, but for most normal women, their most important role is that of mother.

Think about it. Motherhood is biologically hardwired into us. Most women feel called to have children, and feel that there is nothing more beautiful or precious than a child. It’s why so many women are devastated when they miscarry or can’t have children. It’s also why so many women are destroyed after an abortion — they realize that they’ve just killed their baby.

Fascist feminists, though, want to free women of their motherhood chains. Having babies is sexist and breastfeeding is creepy. Nuclear families are dangerous, and motherhood destroys your life. It’s their own agenda that is being pushed, not what women actually want or need.

3. Requiring A Feminist Litmus Test

Nothing angers leftist feminists more than combining the words “feminism” and “Sarah Palin” in a sentence. When Sarah Palin defined herself as a feminist, Jessica Valenti and the feminist left lost their minds. That’s because to the fascist feminists, only certain women count as “real” feminists. Amanda Marcotte even helpfully defined the specific issues that women are supposed to care about. Only women who cater to the liberal extremist agenda can be called feminists to women like Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte.

Consider Sarah Palin, a feminist if there ever was one. She’s an empowered, self-made woman with a high-powered, successful career. She also has five beautiful children, and a loving, supportive husband. She’s even admitted to struggling with the thought of having an abortion, but chose instead to give birth to her son Trig. But because she is a conservative, and because she is pro-life, she is shunned by the fascist feminist set.

The truth is, they’re likely intimidated by strong conservative women. Conservative women don’t live in a world of constant victimhood. They don’t define themselves by their gender. And when conservative women like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley endure disgusting misogynist attacks, they don’t wail about the patriarchy keeping them down. And conservative women actually represent feminism and the average American woman, whereas femisogynists represent only themselves and their own pro-abortion, sexist, anti-male, victimized agenda. When faced with true empowerment, fascist feminists can only try to tear the empowered women down.

2. Promoting Lies and Manipulation

The lengths femisogynists will go to in order to keep abortion legal and commonplace are shocking and despicable. The abortion lobby, and Planned Parenthood in particular, profits off of the lies and manipulation of women. Live Action has exposed the dishonesty in their Rosa Acuna Project, which shows how far clinics will go in order to convince a woman to get an abortion. They’ll tell women that there isn’t a baby inside their womb, they’ll lie about the heart beating, or how developed the baby is. Clinics routinely give out medically false information to women, and radical pro-abortion feminists never say a word about lying to women in order to sell an abortion.

But if you really want to anger the fascist feminists, bring up mandatory pre-abortion ultrasounds, which they call emotionally torturous. One mother interviewed by the New York Times about seeing an ultrasound before her abortion said that women “almost have to think of it as an alien” in order to keep the images from haunting them. Of course the images haunt women — it’s an image of their unborn child that they’re about to kill! Seeing that image will convince many women not to have the abortion. And this is why the pro-abortion feminists are so vehemently against making women see an ultrasound first. They claim to be pro-choice, but how can anyone be pro-choice if they can’t make an informed choice?

The femisogynists don’t want women making their own choice when it comes to abortion. They want women with unplanned pregnancies to choose abortion, always, and never to keep their babies. So they excuse the lies, cover up the manipulation, and fight an ultrasound which would force abortion providers to be truthful about the baby they’re about to kill. If women are going to have abortions, then abortion providers and the pro-abortion feminists owe it to those women to at least give them medically accurate information.

1. Glorifying Abortion

There is perhaps nothing more anti-woman than abortion. But the pro-abortion radical feminists have flipped that onto its head, claiming that to be against abortion is to be anti-woman. And this may be the number one way that fascist feminists are destroying women.

Right now, 22% of all pregnancies will end in abortion. But how does abortion hurt women?

Well, first there are the physical risks. Abortion triples the risk of breast cancer, and abortions also increase the risk of future miscarriages. Emotionally, there are also some horrific consequences. Women who abort are much more likely to commit suicide, with a suicide rate three times higher than the general suicide rate. Women who have an abortion are at a higher risk for long-term clinical depression. There is also a link between abortion and substance abuse, and it can even have an effect on the children who were not aborted (called Survivor Syndrome). There’s also been a connection found between abortion and subsequent child abuse.

But all of this is denied by the fascist feminists. Abortion is important, because an accidental pregnancy will ruin your life! It’s horrifying how much the radical feminists actively try to convince women to have an abortion, that it’s no big deal, that you won’t feel guilt, sorrow, and regret for the rest of your life. The facts are clearly against them, which is why they try so hard to cover those facts up.

The truth is that abortion is not just some normal little medical procedure; it’s a tragedy. Most women intuitively know that; it’s why so many women struggle so much after aborting their children, especially when they realize they’ve been lied to or manipulated into doing it. That is anti-life, and it is anti-woman. It’s a tragedy, for the life that was lost and for the women who have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

The radical pro-abortion crowd fights for abortion “rights” because they have an agenda to push. They don’t care about how harmful it is, and how it can absolutely destroy a woman.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

This is Not Difficult

Describe Your Abortion in Three Words!



Squeeeeeee! Let's get all feminazi-giggly over our rites of passage and tell all, then we'll be members of the club! Here are my three words: NEVER. GONNA. HAPPEN.

What if Jesus had been Aborted?



Classy. Demand respect for your own warped views while mocking the faith of others. That's feminist 'equality', folks.

'I'm Prochoice & Catholic Because of My Strong Sense of Social Justice'





Social justice like this, you mean? Call yourself whatever you want, but stop calling yourself Catholic, heretic.

Abortion, Faith and Religion Bus Campaign!



LMAO @ the reaction this would get if it were a bus campaign supporting pregnancy centers. SHRIEK!!! How much faith does it take to believe an almighty god can't even take care of the child you're planning on killing? Depends on the god, eh? Molech demands his sacrifices...

Women Who Abort? Just 'Animals in a Trap!'



Of course they are! We must encourage perpetual victimhood at all costs, even the lives of our children! We don't want women thinking they're strong, even though we tell girls they can do anything. How will we blame the invisible patriarchy for keeping us downtrodden if we can't blame all our fuckups on them? They might start expecting us to be all responsible and grown up and stuff! Eww.

The Uterus is Not for Children!



Especially in your case, eh? Of course the uterus isn't for children-it's there to please men, just like breasts aren't really milk glands, they're for attracting the opposite sex. Duh! SMH.

I Can't Wait to Kick Your Baby in the Face!



Classy. Feminists are about as feminine as a bag of rocks.

Reproductive Rights are Human Rights!



Unless you happen to be the human still waiting to be born, from whom every right will be stripped, along with your limbs...

'It's OK for a Woman to Force Death on a Child, Both Before and After Birth'



Click to enlarge the image. From a friend's prolife Pinterest board. Absolutely sickening.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Feelin' the Prochoice Luhhhve Yet?



Extra moron points for this despicable oxygen thief hiding behind the word autism to abuse people online-I know quite a few autistic people and none of them are capable of this kind of malice. This idiot is anything but autistic, just your garden variety illiterate hater using a term he knows nothing about in hopes to curry sympathy from his nonexistent audience. An all new prochoice low.

Abused Children Would Be Better Off Dead!



So, they'd be better off dead then? Why don't you go corner one of these children, hold them at knifepoint and ask them if they'd prefer to be killed or prefer to go on living, asshole. Abortion has been legal for 40 years now. Has it eliminated abuse? The number one factor for unwanted children is parents who BAILED on them, either by aborting them to begin with or abandoning them after. Own your own throwaway culture, of which absentee or abusive parents are just another byproduct. Every child is wanted by someone. Instead of killing the victims, start forcing the perps to be responsible, or take away their rights and give them to those who will.

Shriek! You Won't Take Comments!



Guess you missed that big column in the sidebar with the header in all caps that says RECENT COMMENTS, dumbass.

Shriek! Prolife Hate!



Screenshots or it never happened. It's widely known this blog doesn't allow opposing points of view. So let's make up some hate and pretend we deleted it and act all butthurt so we can get some sympathy and attention because we aren't getting any with our inane anarchofeminist drivel posts. Lame.

Athiest Right to Life 101





Astounding arrogance from yet another athiest Singer-ite with zero clue about the concept of moral agency. 'MSizer' had better hope his warped ideology doesn't become reality, otherwise, if he ever finds himself in a coma, vegetative state, severely afflicted with alzheimers or the aftereffects of stroke, he's eligible to be choiced under his own arbitrary definition of right to life. (...cough...NAZI) On planet proabort, a stalk of celery is a superior life form, and puppies deserve to be in a protected class-their own children? Execute 'em. For all their academic posturing they are no better than animals themselves.

Let's play 'Athiest Right to Life!' Blindfold yourself and spin around, then stick a pin anywhere in the image below, and boom, you've just decided when life and personhood begin! If anyone questions you on it, simply posture your opinions as facts, and you're good to go!

What Kind of Woman Has a Second Trimester Abortion?



Trolled from Jezebel (ow, my eyes)

While we know that 9 out of 10 abortions in the US occur very early in a pregnancy. But we didn't know much about the sort of woman who has an abortion after she's moved into her second trimester. Until now.

Guttmacher Institute researchers conducted an analysis of more than 9,493 women who terminated their pregnancies after the 12th week of gestation in 2008. They found that women who receive second trimester abortions tend to be young, uneducated, poor, and black, until 16 weeks' gestation. After that point, the demographics shift: women receiving abortions at 16 weeks or later tend to be high income and using health insurance to pay for the procedure. The age group most likely to receive a second trimester abortion were 18 and 19 year olds.

Because the cost of an abortion increases as the weeks pass, women with high incomes or good health coverage would be more likely to be able to afford a procedure after 16 weeks, which can cost up to $10,000 without insurance. Teens and women with low levels of education might have later term abortions because of a lack of knowledge about their options or access to reproductive health services, or because it takes them some time to secure the money necessary to obtain an abortion.

Researchers noted that in general, the likelihood that a woman would have an abortion at 13 weeks or later is inversely proportional to the woman's poverty status and level of education; that is, the poorer and less educated a woman was, the greater the chance was that she'd have a second trimester abortion.

Interestingly, the study found that more than half of women who received abortions at 16 weeks or later were terminating intended pregnancies, which means we can infer that some of those procedures may be due to a threat to the mother's health or an insurmountable birth defect. Women aren't just waltzing into Planned Parenthood at weeks pregnant and aborting their fetuses willy-nilly.

Further, the vast majority of women surveyed said they would have preferred to have had their abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Wait, what? Second trimester abortions aren't sort of like a gentle tickle fight in the uterus?! I feel so misled.

The results of this analysis may seem obvious, but they're important in building a case for more access to contraception and first-trimester abortion providers for young, poor women, as it is a scientific fact that late term abortions are not fun, and they usually involve women who wish it could have turned out differently. Furthermore, the myth of the flippant pregnant woman deciding to have an abortion at 20 weeks just for funsies needs to be debunked once and for all.

Who has second trimester abortions in the United States? [Guttmacher]

___

So, what kind of woman has a second trimester abortion? By Guttmacher and Jezebel's own admission, not the kind of woman fearing maternal mortality. In other words, the selfish kind who think carelessness is a life-threatening condition. But we knew that already.

Leftist Feminists Proudly Embrace Sluthood, Objectification and Subjugation of Women



Lori Ziganto

There is a new ‘hot topic’ at various alleged Feminist sites that exemplifies yet another reason why leftist self-named Feminists should really be called Femisogynists. Their agenda is purely a political one and it’s one that is actually harmful to women. The end now justifies the means to the point that the new in thing to do in Leftist Feminist/Femisogynist circles is to “embrace sluthood”. No, really. A most recent example from that hotbed of objectification and subjugation of women disguised as feminism, Feministe.com:

I had never thought of my self as a Casual Encounters kind of girl. I’d read them on occasion, sure, out of fascination, horror, horniness. I’d even, once in a long while, in lonely desperate moments, posted an ad, not with the intention of actually meeting anyone, but because sometimes knowing you have a bunch of bad options that you’re rejecting feels better than feeling like you have no options at all. And it was that exact state I found myself in one Friday night last fall, after having been blown apart yet again by some minor rejection that felt so huge it sent me to my bed. I hadn’t showered or shaved or left the house in days. And so, glass of wine in hand, wearing a robe and dirty sweatpants, I posted an ad just so I could watch the replies come in and feel like I had some kind of choice in the world. That somebody wanted me, even if they were gross and I’d never want them back.

Um. Where to begin? Her article, term used loosely, entitled My Sluthood, Myself, is meant to show how empowering and wonderful it is to embrace always-have-antibiotics-on-hand sluthood, yet, in reality, it shows anything but. Maybe it’s just me, but if I was feeling icky and hadn’t showered nor shaved in days, I’d, you know, shower and shave, for starters. I would not post a random “hit me up for a booty call, total stranger” ad. As you read on, her own words belie her “I’m so empowered” false persona: she admits she is desperately craving being wanted and loved. How on earth does random sex, with strangers no less, achieve that? It doesn’t. What it does achieve is objectification, in the really bad way.

I’d like to think that old school feminists, many of whom were honestly trying to achieve some good, didn’t burn their bras in the hopes that women would start unhooking them for every Tom, Dick and Harry in some demented quest for acceptance and fulfillment.

The article goes on, filled with cliches such as “triggers” – femisogynist new-speak for “I want to read this so that I can get outrageously outraged and claim victimization” – and more words that belie the author’s intent. Or what I can only assume is her intent. It seems as if she was trying to make a case for “sluthood”, but she only managed to prove why it’s harmful to women as a whole and that her grip on sanity may very well be Andrew Sullivan-esque. Her conclusion contains this (bleeping of cuss word, mine):

I’m telling you this because our policymakers would rather girls get sometimes-fatal diseases than be perceived as condoning sluthood. I’m telling you this because it’s important for everyone to understand: Sluthood isn’t a disease, or a wrong path, or a trend that’s ruining our youth. It isn’t just for detached, unemotional women who “f**k like men,” (as if that actually meant something), consequences be damned. It isn’t ever inevitable that sluthood should inspire violence or shame. Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling.

Firstly, a total straw-man – excuse me, straw-woman – argument. People who are against free (as in tax payer funded) universal birth control for all, of course, want girls to die! Because they are mean old Rethuglicans and subjugate-y old prudes and stuff. Probably racist somehow, too. Sigh. Secondly, it did not appear to be very healing or soul-fulfilling to the author, her false face of bravado notwithstanding. The good old “liberating” line is a fallacy as well. It’s just the new version of “sexual empowerment” which has done far more harm to women than good.

Once again proving their idiocy, leftist feminists/femisogynists cry “patriarchal oppression” at the drop of a damn hat, yet they choose to embrace lifestyles, under the self-defeating veil of sexual empowerment, that are actually geared toward and beneficial to men. And, you know, totally harmful and denigrating to them. This encouragement of “sexual empowerment” or “liberation”, the obsession with “it’s okay, just use birth control and do whatever feels good”, the pro-abortion agenda that treats a pregnancy as an inconvenient punishment that must be aborted, and the trying to turn sluthood into a politically correct lifestyle, all have resulted in the dehumanization of women and the denigration of womanhood itself.

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: By encouraging women to focus on sexual “equality”- or now “liberation” – they’ve taken away any requirement that women be treated as something other than a sexual toy. Why would anyone respect you as a human being, if you don’t respect yourself? Jaclyn of Feministe, who defines herself by her sexual acts only and with the words My Sluthood, Myself, has yet to learn that lesson. As do the leftist feminists who encourage and enable such dangerous – emotionally and physically – thinking.

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Pope Delivers Powerful Prolife Christmas Homily


(AP) The Vatican's official English-language translation of Pope Benedict XVI's homily, to be delivered in Italian, during Christmas Eve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica.

___

Dear Brothers and Sisters! The reading from Saint Paul's Letter to Titus that we have just heard begins solemnly with the word "apparuit," which then comes back again in the reading at the Dawn Mass: apparuit

"there has appeared". This is a programmatic word, by which the Church seeks to express synthetically the essence of Christmas. Formerly, people had spoken of God and formed human images of him in all sorts of different ways. God himself had spoken in many and various ways to mankind (cf. Heb 1:1 Mass during the Day). But now something new has happened: he has appeared. He has revealed himself. He has emerged from the inaccessible light in which he dwells. He himself has come into our midst. This was the great joy of Christmas for the early Church: God has appeared. No longer is he merely an idea, no longer do we have to form a picture of him on the basis of mere words. He has "appeared". But now we ask: how has he appeared? Who is he in reality? The reading at the Dawn Mass goes on to say: "the kindness and love of God our Savior for mankind were revealed" (Tit 3:4). For the people of pre-Christian times, whose response to the terrors and contradictions of the world was to fear that God himself might not be good either, that he too might well be cruel and arbitrary, this was a real "epiphany," the great light that has appeared to us: God is pure goodness. Today too, people who are no longer able to recognize God through faith are asking whether the ultimate power that underpins and sustains the world is truly good, or whether evil is just as powerful and primordial as the good and the beautiful which we encounter in radiant moments in our world. "The kindness and love of God our Savior for mankind were revealed:" this is the new, consoling certainty that is granted to us at Christmas. In all three Christmas Masses, the liturgy quotes a passage from the Prophet Isaiah, which describes the epiphany that took place at Christmas in greater detail: "A child is born for us, a son given to us and dominion is laid on his shoulders; and this is the name they give him: Wonder-Counsellor, Mighty-God, Eternal-Father, Prince-of-Peace. Wide is his dominion in a peace that has no end" (Is 9:5f.). Whether the prophet had a particular child in mind, born during his own period of history, we do not know. But it seems impossible. This is the only text in the Old Testament in which it is said of a child, of a human being: his name will be Mighty-God, Eternal-Father. We are presented with a vision that extends far beyond the historical moment into the mysterious, into the future. A child, in all its weakness, is Mighty God. A child, in all its neediness and dependence, is Eternal Father. And his peace "has no end." The prophet had previously described the child as "a great light" and had said of the peace he would usher in that the rod of the oppressor, the footgear of battle, every cloak rolled in blood would be burned (Is 9:1, 3-4). God has appeared as a child. It is in this guise that he pits himself against all violence and brings a message that is peace. At this hour, when the world is continually threatened by violence in so many places and in so many different ways, when over and over again there are oppressors' rods and bloodstained cloaks, we cry out to the Lord: O mighty God, you have appeared as a child and you have revealed yourself to us as the One who loves us, the One through whom love will triumph. And you have shown us that we must be peacemakers with you. We love your childish estate, your powerlessness, but we suffer from the continuing presence of violence in the world, and so we also ask you: manifest your power, O God. In this time of ours, in this world of ours, cause the oppressors' rods, the cloaks rolled in blood and the footgear of battle to be burned, so that your peace may triumph in this world of ours. Christmas is an epiphany the appearing of God and of his great light in a child that is born for us. Born in a stable in Bethlehem, not in the palaces of kings. In 1223, when Saint Francis of Assisi celebrated Christmas in Greccio with an ox and an ass and a manger full of hay, a new dimension of the mystery of Christmas came to light. Saint Francis of Assisi called Christmas "the feast o f feasts" above all other feasts and he celebrated it with "unutterable devotion" (2 Celano 199; Fonti Francescane, 787). He kissed images of the Christ-child with great devotion and he stammered tender words such as children say, so Thomas of Celano tells us (ibid.). For the early Church, the feast of feasts was Easter: in the Resurrection Christ had flung open the doors of death and in so doing had radically changed the world: he had made a place for man in God himself. Now, Francis neither changed nor intended to change this objective order of precedence among the feasts, the inner structure of the faith centered on the Paschal Mystery. And yet through him and the character of his faith, something new took place: Francis discovered Jesus' humanity in an entirely new depth. This human existence of God became most visible to him at the moment when God's Son, born of the Virgin Mary, was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger. The Resurrection presupposes the Incarnation. For God's Son to take the form of a child, a truly human child, made a profound impression on the heart of the Saint of Assisi, transforming faith into love. "The kindness and love of God our Savior for mankind were revealed" this phrase of Saint Paul now acquired an entirely new depth. In the child born in the stable at Bethlehem, we can as it were touch and caress God. And so the liturgical year acquired a second focus in a feast that is above all a feast of the heart. This has nothing to do with sentimentality. It is right here, in this new experience of the reality of Jesus' humanity that the great mystery of faith is revealed. Francis loved the child Jesus, because for him it was in this childish estate that God's humility shone forth. God became poor. His Son was born in the poverty of the stable. In the child Jesus, God made himself dependent, in need of human love, he put himself in the position of asking for human love our love. Today Christmas has become a commercial celebration, whose bright lights hide the mystery o f God's humility, which in turn calls us to humility and simplicity. Let us ask the Lord to help us see through the superficial glitter of this season, and to discover behind it the child in the stable in Bethlehem, so as to find true joy and true light. Francis arranged for Mass to be celebrated on the manger that stood between the ox and the ass (cf. 1 Celano 85; Fonti 469). Later, an altar was built over this manger, so that where animals had once fed on hay, men could now receive the flesh of the spotless lamb Jesus Christ, for the salvation of soul and body, as Thomas of Celano tells us (cf. 1 Celano 87; Fonti 471). Francis himself, as a deacon, had sung the Christmas Gospel on the holy night in Greccio with resounding voice. Through the friars' radiant Christmas singing, the whole celebration seemed to be a great outburst of joy (1 Celano 85.86; Fonti 469, 470). It was the encounter with God's humility that caused this joy his goodness creates the true feast. Today, anyone wishing to enter the Church of Jesus' Nativity in Bethlehem will find that the doorway five and a half meters high, through which emperors and caliphs used to enter the building, is now largely walled up. Only a low opening of one and a half meters has remained. The intention was probably to provide the church with better protection from attack, but above all to prevent people from entering God's house on horseback. Anyone wishing to enter the place of Jesus' birth has to bend down. It seems to me that a deeper truth is revealed here, which should touch our hearts on this holy night: if we want to find the God who appeared as a child, then we must dismount from the high horse of our "enlightened" reason. We must set aside our false certainties, our intellectual pride, which prevents us from recognizing God's closeness. We must follow the interior path of Saint Francis the path leading to that ultimate outward and inward simplicity which enables the heart to see. We must bend down, spiritually we must as it were go on foot, in order to pass through the portal of faith and encounter the God who is so different from our prejudices and opinions the God who conceals himself in the humility of a newborn baby. In this spirit let us celebrate the liturgy of the holy night, let us strip away our fixation on what is material, on what can be measured and grasped. Let us allow ourselves to be made simple by the God who reveals himself to the simple of heart. And let us also pray especially at this hour for all who have to celebrate Christmas in poverty, in suffering, as migrants, that a ray of God's kindness may shine upon them, that they and we may be touched by the kindness that God chose to bring into the world through the birth of his Son in a stable. Amen.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Merry Christmas



Mary and Joseph knew the pressures of the most unplanned pregnancy of all time. Because of their understanding of how precious life is, salvation was brought to mankind through pregnancy and birth. Because of the obedience of Mary and Joseph, their names have been blessed throughout history. Whose history have you been chosen to be part of? The manger wasn't left empty, nor was the birth of Christ reduced to a matter of 'choice'. If ever there was an example of why the choice of abortion is wrong, this is it. Where would mankind be if the manger had been left empty? We never would have made it through the last two millenia. Merry Christmas to anyone who reads this, and may the New Year bring a renewed respect for the most basic right of all-the right to life-without which all other rights are irrelevant.

Looking for a Prochoice Christmas Gift?



How about the 'I Had an Abortion' T-Shirt! Make it easier for dudes in bars this holiday season, ladies!

6 Brazen Advocates of Slut Culture on the Pseudo-Feminist Left

Cassy Fiano



Sluthood wasn’t always considered a virtue. Most normal, rational people look at sleeping around as something sad and wrong. It’s not healthy, physically or mentally, it can be damaging to a young girl’s reputation, and it can also be incredibly dangerous. Women that sleep around oftentimes end up feeling used and regret their choices when they get older and decide to settle down. Other women end up contracting STDs, which may or may not be treatable. For these reasons and more, being a slut is understandably looked down upon — it can be genuinely harmful. Today’s pseudo-feminists, however, have turned that common sense logic on its head.

Sluthood is now, unbelievably, looked at in their eyes as healthy and empowering. Sleeping with random men every night is not sleeping around, it’s “embracing your sexuality.” This attitude has trickled down into our everyday culture, and it’s had an effect on young girls. Almost two-thirds of teenagers who do have sex end up wishing they hadn’t. Teens who have sex early are more likely to be depressed or suicidal. And while femisogynists act as if birth control and condoms makes sex absolutely risk-free, the truth is not quite as clear. The emotional consequences are clear; physically, the truth is simply that condoms are not foolproof. Consider that 1 in 4 teenage girls now have an STD. And pregnancy can only reliably be prevented through abstinence, something teenage girls need to know, considering that teenage mothers are significantly more likely to live in poverty and rely on welfare.

Does any of this sound empowering? While the slut culture hits young girls the hardest, it’s unhealthy for everyone, regardless of age. See, for example, how rates of most STDs have climbed since 1997, with the exception of gonorrhea. Chlamydia is especially pervasive, being the most transmitted STD in the United States. It’s especially scary when you consider that approximately 1 in 4 men have chlamydia, but no symptoms, and only about 30% of women get any symptoms. Then there’s herpes, which is incurable. Currently, 1 out of 5 women have herpes.

Yes, encouraging people that sluthood is empowering and healthy is surely a great idea. It’s not irresponsible or potentially dangerous at all! You could only… end up depressed, suicidal, pregnant and single, or with a nasty (possibly incurable) STD. Femisogynists claim that all this means is that we need better sex education in our schools, because condoms are clearly foolproof, and as long as you use a condom, you’ll never ever get pregnant or contract an STD. The truth is not so comforting. Condoms are not foolproof, and perpetuating that myth doesn’t do anyone any favors, as the cold hard facts show. But the pseudo-feminists aren’t pointing these facts out to anyone when they encourage sluthood, are they? This part of it, the dark side, is all extremely hushed up, probably because if most people knew these facts and statistics they’d be terrified to sleep around with wild abandon. And that’s exactly why the femisogynists don’t mention this part of it.

When you think about it, and consider the facts, slut culture is not something we should be encouraging. But who are the people who are pushing this sluthood culture so fiercely? We’re about to discover 6 of the strongest advocates of sluthood culture in America.


Jaclyn Friedman

Example #1: My Sluthood, Myself
I had never thought of my self as a Casual Encounters kind of girl. I’d read them on occasion, sure, out of fascination, horror, horniness. I’d even, once in a long while, in lonely desperate moments, posted an ad, not with the intention of actually meeting anyone, but because sometimes knowing you have a bunch of bad options that you’re rejecting feels better than feeling like you have no options at all. And it was that exact state I found myself in one Friday night last fall, after having been blown apart yet again by some minor rejection that felt so huge it sent me to my bed. I hadn’t showered or shaved or left the house in days. And so, glass of wine in hand, wearing a robe and dirty sweatpants, I posted an ad just so I could watch the replies come in and feel like I had some kind of choice in the world. That somebody wanted me, even if they were gross and I’d never want them back.

I’m telling you this because our policymakers would rather girls get sometimes-fatal diseases than be perceived as condoning sluthood. I’m telling you this because it’s important for everyone to understand: Sluthood isn’t a disease, or a wrong path, or a trend that’s ruining our youth. It isn’t just for detached, unemotional women who “f**k like men,” (as if that actually meant something), consequences be damned. It isn’t ever inevitable that sluthood should inspire violence or shame. Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling.

And here, in Jaclyn Friedman’s words, we see firsthand that sluthood can be liberating and healing.

Reading her post, though, ends up being incredibly sad. Friedman, who bills herself as a “feminist evangelist,” pushes the myth that sluthood can be empowering, but she seems to be saying something different. She says herself that she wants to be loved, she wants to be wanted, and sleeping around with random men is not going to get her that love. A one-night stand gets you that temporary endorphin rush, but you ultimately end up feeling hollow again. So you look for that rush again, have another one night stand, and still feel empty. It’s a vicious cycle, a quick fix that leaves you wanting in the end.

While Jaclyn tries valiantly to prove that sleeping around is this wonderful, liberating, empowering experience, her words ring hollow because you can see right through them. She comes across as bitter and desperate, someone looking for love and validation in any way that she can get it, no matter how unhealthy it may be.

Yet for some reason, we’re supposed to want to emulate her? Why, so that other women can be as desperate and miserable as she is?

Hey, maybe that’s the whole point.


Tracy Clark-Flory

Example #2: In Defense of Casual Sex

I’m a 24-year-old member of the hookup generation — I’ve had roughly three times as many hookups as relationships — and, like innumerable 20-somethings before me, I’ve found that casual sex can be healthy and normal and lead to better adult relationships. I don’t exactly advocate picking up guys at frat parties and screwing atop the keg as the path to marital bliss. It’s just that hookup culture is not the radical extreme it is so frequently mischaracterized as in the media. There is sloppy stranger sex among people my age, sure, but sometimes hooking up is regular sex with a casual acquaintance; sometimes it’s innocent making out or casually dating or cuddling, and, oftentimes, it involves just one person at a time. In a sense it’s all very old-fashioned — there’s just a lot more unattached sex involved.

Like most 20-somethings, I’ve had online pornography and unregulated chat rooms at my fingertips since I hit puberty. But I also grew up during the Girl/Grrrl Power explosion, which taught me to demand respect, and play handball (and, later, hardball) with the boys. And it taught me that I didn’t need to cake myself in makeup or teeter along in foot-disfiguring heels — unless, of course, I wanted to.

… As far as I can tell, these choices don’t form a pattern, other than a refusal to really choose. I was like a college freshman filling out the Career Center’s job placement questionnaire, making an enthusiastic check mark next to every box; except, in my case, I was checking off men. Most of them were great; others led me on and made me cry. In a few cases, I felt used, but other times I felt like a user
.

It’s interesting that Salon writer Tracy Clark-Flory speaks of sleeping around as some kind of warped way to gain respect. She later admits that she and other young women are often looking for something more permanent — but that after two or three hook-ups, the men they’ve been having casual sex with run when the idea of a more serious relationship is brought up.

Can she really not connect the dots there?

She admits that she was able to find an “emotionally available” man… after she stopped her wild adventure into sluthood. Gee, I wonder if that was just a coincidence!

Meanwhile, when she was sleeping around, she often “felt used, or like a user.” How does that demand respect? If she is being used, then she clearly isn’t being respected by the men she’s hooking up with; if she feels like a user, then she clearly doesn’t respect the men. Meanwhile, we’re supposed to believe that this somehow will lead to finding respect and empowerment, and eventually, a “healthy” relationship.

Just, you know, ignore her experiences of feeling used/like a user, and only finding a decent man when she found the will to restrain herself. It’ll be better for you.


Heather Corinna

Example #3: Her advice comes from the fact that Heather Corinna is ANNOYED

Heather Corinna, founder of Scarleteen, an “inclusive, healthy, and sex-positive sex ed resource for teens,” writes:

So, am I a slut? Sure, okay. I am untidy. I have had sex with more people than some people consider acceptable, and on the bell curve of what folks report with a lifetime number of partners, I have had more than most. Since I have routinely questioned both my own values and character for myself all my life as a regular practice, and try to keep flexible, I suppose it’s also true to say mine are both questionable and loose. When you tell me or others something that is true about myself, I’m not likely to get my feelings hurt or be offended, particularly when we’re talking about things that have been my choice, like my sex life.

… I have had my work or the credibility of my work impacted by my actual or perceived sexual behaviour. But I also tend to experience a weird kind of privilege in often having little privilege. I figure if it isn’t going to be one thing, it’ll be another, so I may as well just be who I am and put who I am on the table. Like Janis sang, freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.

Like Jaclyn, I have had times in my life when I have wanted an ongoing, intimate relationship and have not had one, though with me that’s rarely abstract. When I want one of those, it tends to be about wanting one with someone specific (or, let’s be frank: about wanting relationships where I can get some privilege and be spared some of the judgment we get while in other models). It’s fair to say I’ve usually been far more cautious about getting into romantic relationships than I have been about getting into bed with someone
.

It’s interesting how in so many of these posts, the sluthood advocates themselves inadvertently end up proving just why sleeping around with wild abandon is not a good thing.

Earlier, I mentioned — and Corinna confirmed — that a girl’s reputation is likely to suffer based on her supposedly empowered sluthood. In Corinna’s case, she admitted herself that it’s affected her work. And this is one odd thing: femisogynists complain often about the “he’s a stud, she’s a slut” double standard. While the double standard is indeed abhorrent, it’s interesting that the “feminist” response is to engage even more in bad behavior like men do. Instead of trying to work to raise men up to a higher level, they seem to want to bring women down to a lower level.

And it doesn’t exactly speak well for your cause when an advocate for sluthood says that they’re more willing to screw a stranger than get into a committed relationship. It just further confirms the notion that sleeping around can be emotionally crippling.


Monica Shores

Example #4: 6 Reasons to Have Casual Sex

When most of us embark on a new relationship, we’re inundated with anxieties. We usually want to please the other person and we want them to think well of us, because we think highly of them and we want to make the connection last. Above all, we definitely don’t want to weird them out with our strange fantasies and turn-ons. We save that type of honesty for much later, when we feel safer. Many couples never share at all: lack of disclosure is the norm for married couples in a variety of ways, whether the issue is finances or hopes and dreams. In a 2001 poll, only 52% of male respondents and 62% of female respondents told their spouses about their sexual history.

There’s less at stake emotionally with a casual partner. This is the very target at which critics aim their arrows—how can women enjoy sex without an emotional connection?!—but this lack of investment can be freeing. It’s the same relative anonymity that causes some people to blurt out their deepest secrets to their hairdresser or a taxi driver. When we’re with someone who isn’t a fixture of our daily life, our egos relax enough to let a little authenticity come through. Rather than worrying about impressing the other person, you can be more assertive about what satisfies them in bed.

… But many men and women have had the sad experience of falling in love with someone who refuses to indulge in playful sex or whose preferences are entirely at odds with their partner’s.

The heart and the libido are by no means guaranteed to be compatible. (The New York Times recently reported that 15% of marriages were sexless, meaning the couple had not had sex in six months to a year. Casual sex bypasses this by concerning itself primarily with the libido, which is typically regarded as a source of shame and fear, but can yield its own profound and revelatory moments
.

Shores, a writer for Ms. Magazine, Huffington Post, and Alternet, goes over the same old talking points: the prerequisite empowerment angle, the learning about your sexuality drivel, and claiming it will make you a better lover. What was most interesting to me, though, was the completely absurd claim that somehow, casual sex would be better sex than sex in a committed relationship … because your inhibitions are lowered, or something.

Reality, as usual, is quite different. Take The Case for Marriage, written by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher. They found that not only do married couple have more sex than single men and women, but that they had better sex as well. This wasn’t a one-time anomaly, either. This has been proven time and time again, such as in this study which found similar results — that married couples have more and better sex.

While the sluthood advocates would of course claim that being with someone with no strings attached means your inhibitions will be lowered and there will be less anxiety — leading to better sex — when you think about it logically it makes no sense (like most of the arguments made in the push for sluthood). When you are in a committed, long-term relationship with someone, there’s obviously much less anxiety because you’ve been there and done that already with them. You also know what the other person likes and have a greater connection with that person.

But owning up to this would mean that sluthood advocates would have to admit that even sex is better in a relationship, along with virtually everything else.


Therese Schechter

Example #5: Dear Abby, Ever heard of contraception?

I’ll spare you having to read the whole the letter which is about a young woman who gets pregnant in high school, marries the father, has the baby, gives up an education at a prestigious university, basically feels she threw away her life. This cautionary Afterschool Special tale is, I guess, meant to impress upon TGITGS the utter irresponsibility of having sex with her boyfriend. See what happened to that other girl when she had sex??

OK. There are many reasons not to have sex, especially if it’s because of pressure from someone else. And lots of people have less than magical first times, although it does get a whole lot better. But Abby’s answer is right out of 1950s.

Dear, dear Abby: I hear there are things out there called contraceptives. I’m not exactly sure what they are since our school won’t teach us about them, and advice columns won’t talk about them either. But rumor has it that I can have sex and not get pregnant if I use them properly. Not only that, there are also some pretty good ways to protect me from STDs. Why are you keeping them a secret? When did you join the abstinence lobby?

If TGITGS loves and trusts her boyfriend and wants to see what all the
fuss is about sex-wise, the advice Abby should give is “If you’re going to have sex, protect yourself from pregnancy and STDs, so you don’t end up forced into a life, any life, you didn’t choose
.”

This was documentary filmmaker Therese Schecter’s response to a Dear Abby column in which Abby gives a 17-year-old girl some rather sensible advice about wanting to lose her virginity to celebrate prom night : don’t do it! Abby shares a story from one of her readers of what the possible consequences of having sex as a teenager can be. The femisogynist, of course, completely blows it off. (This is the same woman making a documentary entitled How To Lose Your Virginity.)

See, to the pseudo-feminists, having sex is A-OK as long as you don’t get pregnant. STDs are icky, but a baby is even worse. It’s yet another example of the faulty advice that having sex is perfectly safe and healthy as long as you use contraceptives … because condoms and birth control are foolproof and all. If you’re going to have sex, you absolutely should use protection, but giving girls the idea that it makes you absolutely safe is just not true. There’s always the chance that protection will fail, and that’s even if you do everything right. People also make mistakes in using contraceptives, which makes the chances of them failing even greater. But you won’t hear the femisogynists mention that in their rush to promise that sex will be hunky-dory as long as you just slap on a condom.

Then there’s the ridiculous premise that a 17-year-old virgin should give it up to her more experienced boyfriend, just because he wants to and because it’s prom night.

Yeah, I bet she’ll feel really empowered after that.


Jessica Valenti

Example #6: The Purity Myth

Some of you may already know that I’m working on a book about this culture of purity and chastity, and how it’s America’s obsession with virginity, not Girls Gone Wild and hooking up, that’s f***ing young women up.

Considering all we’ve discussed concerning the risks of sluthood — emotional consequences, pregnancy, STDs — I’d imagine we could agree that encouraging girls to sleep around and engage in the “Girls Gone Wild” culture is much more harmful than encouraging them to exercise some restraint when it comes to sex.

Yet Feministing founder Jessica Valenti and her pro-sluthood ilk proclaim the exact opposite, all the while saying that they have the best interests of women at heart.

The idea that we should teach girls, from a young age, that they should just do whatever makes them feel good in the moment is a ridiculous — and harmful — one. Whether a girl has sex before marriage or not isn’t the issue. The issue is that we shouldn’t be telling girls that Samantha from “Sex and the City” is a role model, and that having sex with no restraint whatsoever is no big deal.

And while Valenti argues that sex shouldn’t have any bearing on a girl’s self esteem, it doesn’t mean that it won’t, or that it’s “a culture of abstinence” making her feel bad. How would a 14-year-old girl’s self esteem suffer if she went to the doctor and found out she had herpes, a disease she had to live with for the rest of her life? Or if a 16-year-old lost her virginity to her boyfriend, who then promptly dumped her? Or if a 26-year-old had to explain to her husband that she’s had twice as many sexual partners as her age? I’d imagine in any of these scenarios that she wouldn’t feel all that confident and empowered. It doesn’t help girls or women to act as if these things shouldn’t or don’t matter. It’s misguided and harmful.

But you won’t hear Jessica Valenti, or her fellow advocates of sluthood, ever own up to that.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Pro 'Choice'?



Excuse me, but isn't it their 'choice' whether they want to 'breed' or remain celibate or not? Who the fuck are YOU to tell people in other countries how to manage their own sexuality? Typical arrogant libtard-the people you speak of neither need nor seek your approval. 'Keep your laws out my uterus while I force first world depravity onto your culture.' SMH. Maybe if some these morons got their heads out of the political asses of other countries and onto their own country's issues, their own countries wouldn't be failing...

A Question for Prochoice



Great question. So, what about it, prochoice? How many of you gutless cowards will step up and answer? After all, they're not 'babies' or 'people' at this point, according to you. What's wrong with experimenting on them, or is there nothing wrong with it at all? And what's the difference between cutting them up and vacuuming out their brain at this point versus experimenting on them first? Should one be legal and the other not, if you're just going to kill them anyway?

War on Women! When Will it End?



'Call the waahmbulance! I have the right to kill my unborn child at any time during pregnancy, the right to go to college, work, vote, sit on my ass and collect welfare, marry or not marry, change my gender, sit on twitter all day tweeting bullshit while others work to pay taxes and fund my entitlements but it's still not enough-I won't be satisfied until the government steps in to take care of my every need and satisfy any momentary whim, because as a woman I'm just a victim and can't be expected to do anything for myself! I condemn motherhood and those stupid breeders but still live at home with mommy (but that doesn't count) they're stripping away my rights! I shouldn't have to do my own laundry or wipe my own ass! Where's the government help? Cue the violins!'

THIS IS WHY feminism is such an epic fucking FAIL. I cringe at the thought of women in other countries who live in ACTUAL OPPRESSION reading the narcissistic garbage of morons like this-what a total slap in the face to them. This tweet is, however, a great illustration of why abortion and radical feminism haven't helped women, only given them free reign to claim perpetual victimhood. If you hate all the many freedoms you have here so much, moron, I wish you safe and swift passage to Yemen. Godspeed, and good riddance.

The KKK is More Honest Than Prolife!



The prolife mission is the same as it's always been-to make abortion illegal, because it's murder. The KKK (a leftwing nutjob organization) in their wettest dreams could never have accomplished what the abortion lobby has: 54 million dead.

The Ku Klux Klan was established after Southern Democrats lost the Civil War to the Republican Party. They were thought of as the "militant arm" of the Democrat Party and sought to kill former Black slaves, Irish slaves, Oriental Slaves & the Republicans who freed them all. The late Senator Robert Byrd recruited for the KKK and was a Senator from West Virginia.

Speaking of far left nutjobs, let's take a look at some of the words of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and mother of the prochoice movemenbt in America...

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex:
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA:
"...brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!"), The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church's view of contraception:
"...enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood:
"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep... for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." (Luke 23:24)]





Well lookie there! If it isn't Maggot herself with her KKK buddies! Looks like old prochoice has a lot in common with the Klan, doesn't it? LMAO.

BIGOTRY is the foundingstone of the prochoice movement in America. Jovan, as a black man you have sold out your race AND your gender and you're completely castrated by feminists. Sit down, before you say something even more moronic than the above moronic quote.

Remember When?



Remember that time when Christians threatened to kill and burn athiests over a twitter trend? Me neither. Remember when those Christians flew those planes into the World Trade Center or blew themselves up at bus stations? Me neither. Remember all those 'peaceful' athiest dictators who killed millions of people? Yeah, me too. Remember all those athiests standing in line to receive Christian charity at your church's food bank, and how they were helped regardless of creed? Yeah, me too.

Feminism Works for Everyone!



Except for men, prolife women, unborn children, the poor, conservatives, women living in oppression in other countries, single mothers who want to keep their babies, women who regret their abortions, women who have died from both legal and illegal abortion, Christians....

Thursday, December 22, 2011

First, Do No Harm...

Feminism!

Late Term Abortions Are Only Done For...

This post in response to the following comment...



Do you know the story behind this picture? Was the Mother's life in danger? Was the fetus dead? Was it a still birth? Miscarriage? Was it an abortion like Karen Santorum's abortion? Showing dead fetus pictures means nothing, if you don't have a story behind it. Pregnancy involves a Woman's body too. Where is her body? What is HER story? Abortions are done every day to Save a Woman's life, and YES, sadly, this is what it looks like.( it looks like the umbilical cord is wrapped around it's neck. This happens often, and is a tragedy)Since most legal abortions are done in the 1st 8 weeks, this does not depict average abortion. Late term abortions are done to Save a Woman's life or fetal abnormality.

'Clark'-the photo was certified and authenticated by a pathologist:



You will note that below there is a link to a document signed by a pathologist who attests to the medical accuracy this particular image. Each document was also notarized. This pathologist, Dr. Abigail Allen, worked specifically with the remains of aborted children. I only use images from Priests For Life, because of their authenticity. PFL has been working for years retrieving the bodies of aborted babies from dumpsters, clinic freezers etc. Also note both the baby's arms are broken, and the brusing on his hind end. Cry 'miscarriage' all you want, Clark-this was a healthy baby aborted for no other reason than the crime of being unwanted. You may want to make note also of the agony frozen on the baby's face. Having miscarried a baby at 7 months, I take personal offense when proaborts such as yourself try to conflate abortion with miscarriage. As Karen Santorum didn't abort either, but miscarried, I'm sure she'd join me in vilifying you for such slimy tactics. Hold onto that particular lie, if it makes you feel better. The facts tell a far different story.

As to your bullshit claims about all late term abortions only being done for fetal indication, you're about to get an education. First off, 98 percent of abortions in this country are ELECTIVE-that means mommy's life wasn't in danger, Clark. That leaves 2 percent. Of that 2 percent, some abortions are for rape/incest, and less than 1 percent are for fetal indication. Of those pregnancies that are deemed 'life-threatening' to the mother, in a great many cases, both mother and child can be saved. 'Fetal Indication' in the world of an abortionist is a subjective term-after all, it's the abortionist who makes the final call on whether to proceed, and the abortion industry is 'self-regulating.' Time to take a look at one your more notorious late-term killers, and we'll get an inside look as to what constitutes 'fetal indication.' Read on...

An analysis of those "medically necessary" Tiller abortions
The assertions that the abortions Tiller was infamous for were performed on women whose lives were in danger have begun to fade. As they should, as people ponder the utterly nonsensical idea that any woman could face a life-threatening or health-threatening pregnancy complication for which the safest course of action is to strenuously avoid all inpatient care at fully-equipped hospitals and to instead spend three days at the La Qunita attended by your mom or boyfriend.

That said, let's look at exactly what justification there was for these abortions.

Kansas law only allows third-trimester abortions (post-viability abortions done on fetuses who could have been delivered alive) for two reason:

“(1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”

Now, these reasons are clearly bogus in the first place, since a pregnant woman whose life or health is in danger in the third trimester would need care in a fully-equipped hospital, not in the La Quinta. There's no medical reason not to do an emergency c-section or delivery in a hospital, where the mother will be attended by medical professionals. There can be no medical reason to have her spend three days in a motel attended by her husband, partner, sister, parents, or friends. But the Supreme Court, in Doe v. Bolton created a "health" need for post-viability abortions. The "need" is a judicial one, not a medical one, invented by men in black robes, not doctors in white coats. Up until Roe and Doe, there was no such thing as a post-viability abortion. I can't stress that enough: Up until Roe and Doe, an abortion by definition was the termination of a pregnancy prior to fetal viability.

That said, Dr. Paul R. McHugh, who reviewed the redacted medical records on George Tiller's post-viability abortions, explores the reasons given as justification:





Highlights: Interviewer reviews Dr. McHugh's impressive qualifications. Dr. McHugh explains that Attorney General Kline asked him to review the records to "confirm or reject the idea" that the women were "in danger of suffering a substantial and irreversible impairment if the pregnancies continued -- impairment of a psychiatric kind." He did not think those records supported the claim that the women would suffer any substantial and irreversible impairment, as spelled out in Kansas law. The question he was asked was did he, an independent psychiatrist, concur with the idea that an abortion was necessary to prevent substantial and irreversible psychiatric damage.

Dr. McHugh indicated that he looked for evidence of the following: Where the records adequate to develop a diagnosis? Did the diagnoses represent a substantial and irreversible impairment? Would an abortion resolve the problem? Were these adequate psychiatric justifications?

He pointed out that the records were redacted, since names and identifying information were removed. He was to look at the quality and adequacy of the examinations done to determine a psychiatric justification for abortion. The interview establishes that Dr. McHugh was the state's expert witness, and that he wrote an affidavit of his findings.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that Paul Morrison, who replaced Phil Kline, never contacted Dr. McHugh to follow through on the case. Dr. McHugh was not called on to testify when Tiller finally went to trial. And, what's more, Paul Morrison never addressed the issue of whether or not the abortions in question were medically justified according to Kansas law. He stuck to one narrow point: Was Dr. Neuhaus, who signed off on all of the abortions, sufficiently "independent" under the law? Whether or not the records substantiated the claim that the abortions were medically justified was never addressed in court.

What were some of the reasons given by the mothers for these late-term abortions? These abortions were done at 26 to 30 weeks. I address the issue of accuracy in estimating gestational age, and the potential these babies had for survival, here. In a nutshell, assuming that Tiller's estimates of these babies' ages were 100% accurate (odds are against that but we'll assume), they had at least an 80% chance of survival if delivered live via emergency c-section or labor induction, as is the standard of care for treating women with third-trimester pregnancy complications.

So what did Dr. McHugh find were the reasons for these supposedly compelling, health-preserving late term abortions?

"The mothers were expressing ... great senses of distress and worry about their future. They were tearful, and preoccupied that only an abortion would help them. They said that they were sad and frightened, and they spoke about fears that their future life would be changed. They expressed ideas that they were not being given adequate support, and that they felt that the abortion would help them."

The interviewer asks him to summarize his findings. Dr. McHugh says these records were "very inadequate psychiatric records." He described them as being very brief, lacking a patient history, lacking detail. "There was no clear work of -- in those records that would be construed of capable of giving you a full picture of the mental condition of these women. They highlighted certain kinds of things that .... were sometimes of a most trivial sort, from saying that 'I won't be able to go to concerts' or 'I won't be able to take part in sports'" to a reluctance to surrender the child for adoption or concern about the child's future. "At no time could you see and understand the future of these individuals and in what way they could be seen as full people, people capable of being helped in this situation. Rather, they were highlighted for certain kinds of -- well, preoccupations and concerns." Dr. McHugh pointed out, "I could pick out only bits and pieces of this. This is not a -- None of them represented a full psychiatric history."





Highlights: Interviewer asks for Tiller's justifications. "He had mostly social reasons for thinking that the late term abortions were suitable. That the children ... would not thrive. That the woman would have her future re-directed. That they wouldn't get a good education after they had a child. That they would be always guilty in some way about having that child. That they had been abused already and that this -- to have the baby would be another form of abuse. These ... are not psychiatric ideas... These were social ideas. .... There was nothing to back these things up in a substantial way."

Dr. McHugh also stressed the lack of follow-up planning, no follow-up care of any sort, including a lack of a psychiatric aftercare plan. There were also no explorations of alternative treatments other than abortion. "You couldn't even begin to try to get a true picture of the person." He noted again that some of the justifications included concerns about attending the prom, or concerts, or sporting events. Dr. McHugh also noted that attending concerts and sporting events, or pursuing an education, are things many people pursue after having a baby.

"Occasionally you would hear someone say their suicidal ideation would increase." Dr. McHugh noted that "being pregnant and being the mother of a child up to age one actually reduces the suicide risk to women from three to eight-fold." He also noted that abortion and miscarriage are known to increase suicide risk. There was nothing in the records to indicate why Tiller felt that these women's situations ran so far contrary to the established patterns of suicide risk.

Dr. McHugh again noted the paucity of information on these cases, and the lack of proper psychiatric work-ups. "These cases have not been studied thoroughly. And the diagnoses that have been made, such as depression, adjustment disorder and the like -- those are not substantial and permanently impairing conditions. Those are conditions we psychiatrists deal with all the time." He points out that most psychiatric practice involves helping patients to overcome these diagnoses "and restoring people to their mental health. We do that all the time."

Dr. McHugh says, "I think that these young women were all in a demoralized state of mind. You -- These diagnoses become almost interchangeable, at least on the evidence that's produced here. They're all fundamentally demoralized young women and what they needed was support, help, care, and long-term treatment for the situation that they had, in which they felt abandoned, so that they could once again feel, as they should feel, that their future is rich."

The interviewer asked if it wasn't a breach of medical care to lack follow-up plans. Dr. McHugh says, "It relates to my concern about these records as not being adequate, either in what they brought to the case, or what they propose for the case other than the abortion. And I had to ask myself, looking at these records, is any person who comes to this clinic ever found not to be appropriate on psychological or psychiatric grounds for abortion?"

The interviewer asked if Tiller ever rejected a patient. Dr. McHugh said he'd seen no such records. "I'm saying that looking at these records, and what they were employed to do, I can't imagine that anyone wouldn't satisfy those criteria." He added, "From these records -- anybody could have gotten an abortion if they wanted one."

"When I look at the records, as far as I can tell, all these young women were very similar in the sense that they were all demoralized. And what other diagnostic term you wanted to give it was almost interchangeable on the basis of these records. They were discouraged -- fearful, worried young women who needed support, and would express a variety of ideas in that context to win what they were looking for. And that's -- that's the way to understand these people in my opinion. And a thorough psychiatric examination, and a thorough and adequate psychiatric plan was needed by them, and was not received -- here, anyway."





Highlights: She asked about Tiller's training in psychiatry and psychology. Dr. McHugh says he doesn't know, though he does understand Tiller worked in pathology for a while and was not a psychiatrist. And he stresses that he wasn't called upon to judge Tiller's qualifications, just to review the records and their adequacy as far as psychiatric evaluations and psychiatric treatment planning.

The psychiatric assessments justifying the abortions evidently were being done by Tiller, and each file included a letter from a second doctor who expressed "her" opinion -- indicating that it was always the same doctor (Likely Dr. Kristen Nuehaus) -- seconding Tiller's opinion that the woman would indeed suffer a substantial and irreversible impairment of a bodily function, psychiatrically, should they not have abortions. Dr. McHugh noted, "that letter did not come with the kind of pages of psychiatric study, evaluation, biographical details, understanding of the person on which -- from that record you could confirm that opinion." He noted, "At least from the record,that second opinion ... rested upon an encounter with the young woman and a statement of her present state of mind. So it was an opinion derived in much the same way, from the statements of the patients themselves of how distressed they were." He noted that the letters were not highly detailed, but a letter was "brief, symptom-only based, and unsubstantiated in its prognosis on the basis of a rich detailed study of the young woman and her potentials."

He looks at the lack of any review of the woman's situation, or her resources. "One wonders looking at this why some consideration isn't being made to employ them for the benefit of these patients." He notes that the impression one gets from reviewing the cases is, "These young women came here for an abortion, and the effort on the part of the psychiatric assessment was to support that -- that idea that an abortion is appropriate rather considering the alternatives, the risks and benefits of this to this person in a life."

The interviewer asked if any of the files showed sufficient psychiatric evidence to justify an abortion. Dr. McHugh saw none. They were all based on the "present state of mind of being distressed" and the social idea that the patient's opportunities might be lessened if they bore their children.

Dr. McHugh felt that the records were inadequate to perform a diagnosis, and very inadequate to understand the women in question. He picked up that they were "discouraged" and "demoralized" and "disheartened" and a psychiatric diagnosis of depression seemed very inadequate to him. The records were so inadequate that they did not, in his opinion, support the diagnoses given, nor of any other diagnosis. He felt that no psychiatrist would consider them adequate records to make a diagnoses or make a psychiatric plan. And, he noted, despite the paucity of information on which to base a psychiatric plan, these files were in fact being used to make a psychiatric plan -- to perform an abortion as a treatment for the diagnoses in question.

The interviewer went through the diagnoses given and asked did they constitute permanent and irreversible impairments, and Dr. McHugh indicated no, and that furthermore these conditions, if the diagnoses were correct, are treatable in pregnancy.





Highlights: "How would you summarize ... Tiller's findings that justify these late term abortions?" McHugh noted, "All I can carry away from this is that by these criteria, is that no person that would want an abortion -- a late-term abortion --would be turned away from that. So I presume that the idea here is to justify that surgical procedure. That -- And these records on a psychiatric basis do not justify that."

The interviewer asked about the social reasons Tiller used. Dr. McHugh referred to his notes. Tiller claimed that a patient would end up uneducated -- which is a social prediction, not a medical prognosis. That the patient feared occupational setbacks or family disapproval.

Dr. McHugh said, "I don't mean to say that if you do lose out in your education that that's not harm, but it's a social harm, and those kinds of things should be treated in a social fashion. And by supporting the individual, re-moralizing her, giving her her strengths ... she then, as we know, independently can demand the kinds of support ... that she would be entitled to!"

Dr. MrHugh quoted one of Tiller's notes justifying one of these third-trimester abortions: "If she was forced to carry to term, she would end up as an uneducated person without occupational skills and have multiple other pregnancies. ... All of those things are social predictions! .... I'm saying, and we psychiatrists would say, will be avoided if you can get this person once again to feel what she's entitled to feel, that she is an independent individual with rights.... If you teach her that the only thing that can be done here is that this viable human being has to be killed in order for her to have anything in her future, that's a lesson, that's a social lesson, that may well... take from her the sort of sense that she can overcome hurdles that life brings her."

He points out that this sort of defeatist attitude toward women in any other context would be treated with the appropriate scorn.

Dr. McHugh expressed a sense that Tiller was reinforcing the patients' views of themselves as powerless and incapable, with no promise and no strengths, that Tiller was underscoring and reinforcing a sense of hopelessness.

Dr. McHugh says, "Doctors are supposed to give hope to people, and give support to people, and they have to believe that there is such hope to be found in them. And usually ... that kind of hopeful attitude comes out of taking the full history of the person, noticing not simply what life has imposed upon her, but what she has brought to life, what her strengths are. If we approach a psychiatric problem as though there are only deficits rather assets for a person, we will never have an optimistic and future-oriented therapy for people. We've got to see their assets as well as their vulnerabilities.... And those don't come across in these records."

He adds, "By the records, anyway, what is being looked at is the state of mind of the woman right at the time, in which the issues of the stressing aspects of her present context are emphasized, and her strengths, her assets, the things that she brought, and, by the way, our capacity to open up for her and broader her horizons as to what can happen in the future for her is neglected. It's as though, from the records .... one has the idea that the purpose of this visit is to justify an abortion, rather than the purpose of this visit is to have a full psychiatric understanding of this person and see all of the alternative ways that she could approach her life."





The interviewer then reinforced that these are viable fetuses, late in pregnancy. "These are the very kinds of little babies that are being taken care of in ICUs all around our country. .... To eliminate them is a serious business. .... There's no psychiatric reasons for that."

Dr. McHugh notes that "There is no psychological condition for which abortion is the cure."

The interviewer asked why Dr. McHugh chose to speak out. He noted that he was invited to this situation by an Attorney General, and that psychiatry was being called in to justify these abortions. "This is not a full psychiatric practice that we are seeing here. Rather, psychiatric terms are being employed to justify doing a procedure." He sees speaking out as "speaking out for my discipline."

Dr. McHugh said, "These records are not adequate records for the support of a serious decision for abortion, and that they do not represent psychiatry at its best, and psychiatry at its best should be employed when serious decisions are being made."

"The people of Kansas have written these laws," Dr. McHugh stressed. "'Viable fetuses should not be aborted unless there is a substantial and irreversible condition that the pregnancy will produce.' Well, when a psychiatric diagnosis is brought forth, I think that the people should understand that that requires a heck of a lot more than I found in these records. That's what I' here and that's what I'm trying to report."

And the narrator recaps.

The things Dr. McHugh brought forth are in keeping with what investigators found when they researched abortion lobby claims that late abortions are done only in desperate situations where either mother or baby had a terrible diagnosis. In fact, what Dr. McHugh describes being done in Kansas to get around laws against post-viability abortions is highly reminiscent of the rubber-stamping psychiatrists used to do to enable women to get around laws banning elective abortions prior to legalization.

As this woman's testimony bears out that these abortions are not being done to address women's critical health issues, and also, Tiller is not reporting statutory rape. She was only 14 years old.



She describes pushing her baby out into a toilet, which was the standard way the abortions were done at Tiller's facility.

You can hear Michelle Arnesto's unedited testimony about her illegal late-term abortion at Tiller's mill here. And there are summaries of other cases here. The cases, in a nutshell, are 26 weeks for Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified or Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; 29 weeks with no reason given for declaring the fetus "non-viable"; 28 weeks for Major Depressive Disorder Single Episode, 28 weeks with no note on the mother's medical condition, 28 weeks for Major Depressive Disorder Single Episode, etc. And -- often -- no medical justification given at all.

Even one of Tiller's friends pointed out, in a marvel of understatement, "Some of his practices are hard to defend."

So, Clark, whose lives were saved here? Whose life is saved when a baby is aborted because it has Down's Syndrome? Whose life is saved when mommy aborts a girl because she wanted a boy? Whose life is saved when continuing pregnancy would cause such life-threatening conditions as 'financial hardship' or 'emotional distress', terms Tiller frequently used to justify late-term abortions?

In case you haven't been keeping up with the news, Clark, one of your abortionist heroes is about to stand trial for murdering full term healthy babies. Read the Grand Jury indictment against him here all kinds of lives 'saved' there, eh?







I called every one of these clinics and told them I was 6 months pregnant and continuing my pregnancy would cause me severe 'emotional distress.' Guess how many of them tried to turn me away, Clark. Not. One. Call them yourself and see what they say. Then get back to me about how 'lifesaving' abortion is, at ANY stage of pregnancy. Abortion is 100 percent LETHAL to gestating babies, who are autonomous human beings separate from their mother with a life and destiny of their own regardless of their temporary location in the womb, which, incidentally, is where gestating babies belong. No amount of prochoice spin will change that.