Friday, August 31, 2012
The 'profile pic' in question:
Amazing, isn't it? Aborted fetus is sucking his thumb, surrounded by uterine walls. Extra moron points for this one:
Broccoli is still 'ate' on Earth. LOL! Broccoli is still eaten on Earth. (Some animals eat their young too, but I digress). And there's no such thing as 'violance' against women. Hopefully, you'll get your GED in the next decade or so. In the meantime, you've graduated to Ubermoron. Stop by the front desk for your shiny new ID card on the way out.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Social Security Administration released its annual statistical report on federal disability insurance last month, revealing that at the end of 2011 there was a then-record of 8,575,544 workers collecting federal disability benefits and among them were 1,304,851 doing so because they suffered from “mood disorders.”
The “mood disorders” scam — by which you make a living at others’ expense by declaring yourself to be in a bad mood — is especially popular in Puerto Rico, accounting for one third of disability beneficiaries.
Dumbassachusetts led the 50 states for disabling mood disorders. In that state, 22.8 percent of disability beneficiaries had been diagnosed with a mood disorder. … Among the states, North Dakota — with 9.2 percent — had the lowest percentage of disability beneficiaries diagnosed with a mood disorder.
The rate of mood disorder claims is almost certainly correlated with the prevalence of fraud, as is confirmed by the higher percentage in areas dominated by liberals, who believe they have a right to other people’s money.
With Obama in the White House, it is much easier to qualify as having a mood disorder than it is to find a job:
For example, one way a potential disability beneficiary can qualify with a mood disorder includes presenting medical documentation of “persistence, either continuous of intermittent, of at least four of the following symptoms: Anhedonia or pervasive loss of interest in almost all activities; or Appetite disturbance with change in weight; or Sleep disturbance; or Psychomotor agitation or retardation; or Decreased energy; or Feelings of guilt or worthlessness; or Difficulty concentrating or thinking; or Thoughts of suicide; or Hallucinations, delusions, or paranoid thinking.”
Try to prove that a parasite gaming the welfare system doesn’t have feelings of worthlessness.
The entire Occupy Wall Street movement and most of Prochoice qualifies.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Translation: 'Shit-this kinda crap makes us look bad after all our feigned outrage at sex-selective abortion, so let's shrill about how illegal late-term abortion is, even though it isn't'. Then let's post something like this on the same Tumblr page:
'You can't be as victimey as me! If you die of cancer, Ann, your death won't be as painful as if I die of cancer! You simply can't suffer, because you have money - only poor feminazis are actual victims. Successful women don't suffer any pain or disease at all-and if they do it doesn't count as real suffering, unless they're funding my entitlements! Disease is only a hardship if you're poor!'
Name one person whose money ever bought them another day of life. Disease and death are no respecter of persons. Get over yourself and stop living like a fucking victim and STAND UP like a grown woman.
In 1990 a couple underwent In Vitro Fertilization. They eventually had a healthy baby. They also, as is common, had a number of microscopic embryos that hadn't been implanted, but were viable. They decided to anonymously donate them.
Now, one of those embryos has produced a little boy, 20 years after being created. This May, a 42-year-old woman gave birth to that boy, as reported in the journal Fertility and Sterility.
Frozen embryos are something of a new frontier in medicine and ethics. Last week Robert Edwards won the Nobel prize for developing IVF. But the questions surrounding the leftover embryos is still being struggle with. Recently NPR's Robert Siegel talked to Jeff Kahn, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota Medical School, about just this issue.
SIEGEL: There is another area of concern, which is the notion that embryos that are not implanted are frozen and whatever we do with them, are we doing that with human life? Is disposing of them disposing of human life? That problem persists.
Dr. KAHN: Absolutely. And I think it's something that was foreseen in some respect. But the numbers at which we create and now store the excess embryos has really gotten to the point where we need a societal conversation and maybe a policy decision about what to do with those leftover embryos. The estimates are something like a million frozen embryos left in the United States alone. And we don't really have good plans for what ought to be done with them.
And as the Telegraph points out, that's only one of the issues raised by the new genetic technologies.
In 2007 a mother froze some of her own eggs so they could be used by her then-seven-year-old daughter who was likely to be infertile because of a medical condition.
If the girl used the eggs she would effectively give birth to her own half brother or sister.
Last year a baby girl was born conceived using sperm that had been frozen 22 years earlier.
As part of his post-Akin effort to emphasize that he doesn't hold extreme views that could alienate female voters, Mitt Romney said today in an interview with Scott Pelley of the CBS Evening News that his position on abortion has been "clear throughout this campaign. I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother." Then in a classic Romney move, he made another comment that only creates more confusion about where exactly he stands. "Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court," says Romney. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts." Democrats are definitely trying to use the issue against Republicans in this year's campaign, but there's another reason we're still talking about a fight that was settled in 1973: Prolifers never stopped working to overturn that Supreme Court decision, and the Republican Party's platform includes support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Romney's support for allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the mother's life already puts him at odds with his running mate and the party platform, which mentions no such exceptions. However, in the past Romney has suggested that he doesn't consider the matter "settled" or solely "a matter in the courts." While being questioned about his stance on contraception in a January debate, Romney said:
In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. It was based upon that same principle. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it’s in the federal Constitution.
And by the way, if the people say it should be in the federal Constitution, then instead of having unelected judges stuff it in there when it’s not there, we should allow the people to express their own views through amendment and add it to the Constitution.
The one thing that does clear up is the answer to Pelley's question, "Are you a candidate for the entire Republican Party?" Romney's trying to position himself as the guy everyone in the GOP can back, from prolifers who believe ending abortion is our top priority to those who think the abortion debate is a distraction from the real issues in the campaign.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Which abortion zealot has the stupidest username on their Twitter account? Nominate your favorites here in the comments section, and when we get enough nominees, we'll vote for a winner. Winner will receive, as always, public ridicule on Twitter.
Abortion zealots find images of abortion unacceptable. Ever wonder what the reaction would be if we were holding actual aborted fetuses? You know, the end result of what they shill for, shriek for, pay for, and claim they'll die without? If your choices are too disturbing and ugly to look at, maybe it's time to reassess your priorities?
Oh, the lulz. They carried handcuffs Tuesday and tried to enter a performing arts center. Rice was attending an event in conjunction with the Republican National Convention. They said they wanted to make a citizen’s arrest of Rice. She was Bush’s National Security Adviser when the Iraq War started in 2003.
Officers told protesters to leave because they were on private property. They went back to the sidewalk and several lay down under sheets made to look like they were blood-splattered. Love the sign with the number of dead kids-nowhere near the 55 million their own ideology has aborted here, though.
No word from them on the blood-splattered raid that took out Bin Laden. Apparently defending America is only objectionable when conservatives do it. Maybe they should stick with their vagina costumes-eventually they'll get douched away by the Summer's Eve known as common sense and class.
Message to women everywhere; if u dont get ur ass to the poll in Nov and punch the hole that doesnt denegrate urs.. u r not a Woman!— Nancy Lee Grahn (@NancyLeeGrahn) August 28, 2012
That's all you are to proabort feminists, ladies. A hole.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Yes, Al Jazeera, well known as the network of choice for Muslim Terrorists, who regularly broadcast anti-American hate (and regularly broadcasted Bin Laden's videotaped messages to his followers). Need any more proof that radical proggies are treasonous bastards? I wonder if Stack is aware that Islam is mostly anti-abortion?
Guest Post by Chad Felix Greene
Shame, fear and dignity. I think rape victims feel these things more than anything else. Being violated is such a uniquely traumatic experience that it is difficult to truly explain, but these three words help.
Shame is not supposed to happen but it does. You go through your normal life feeling exceptionally in control, especially over your body, and if that is taken from you it becomes an incredible blizzard of self-doubt, anger and confusion. How could someone do this to me? Why didn't I stop them? Shame is the saddest emotion because no one can overcome it but the person experiencing it.
Fear is what happens when you recognize your own limited ability to control some situations, especially the one you never thought you'd ever be susceptible to.
Dignity. This one is the wild card. We find dignity in embracing the title “rape victim” and we find dignity in recognizing the before and after of experience. Dignity can find us moving on with our lives or becoming advocates for others.
The Pro-Choice movement uses these three things to define the experience too, and they use it as a weapon. Pro-Choice is based around the concept that a woman is helpless in terms of her bodily integrity. She cannot control its value, who uses it, how they use it and what happens after. Pregnancy is defined as the peak of this inability to control one's life as one must endure it without finding any peace in the knowledge of one's life before and after.
Pro-Choice relies on the the fear that as a woman you will be forced to release authority over your body to the whims of others – men – and accept whatever they have planned for you. The demand for abortion revolves around the belief that as a woman you have the right to choose the outcome of the before-mentioned abuse of your bodily integrity.
Pro-Life recognizes the glaring flaws in this world view by pointing out that a woman has complete control over her bodily integrity. She can choose everything from her exposure to sexual interest to the sexual experience itself. She can protect herself in a variety of ways, as can the man involved, from pregnancy occurring. She can choose to be in a long term relationship, be married or stay single. She can choose the number of partners and the frequency as well as the level of activity with each. A woman has authority over her body and her life without difference to that of a man.
Pro-Life does not see pregnancy as a punishment for sexual activity nor does it view words such as “force” or “choice” as being relevant to the pregnancy itself. When one creates a life that life becomes equal to all human life and without exception should be honored as such.
In a straight-forward discussion it is comfortable and natural to affirm the dignity of the human life created and the many Pro-Choice responses about a woman's personal selfish requirements become less and less convincing. We have too much evidence, both instinctual and and scientific, that show how life is dramatic and vibrant from the moment of conception on and it becomes an irrational demand to say that life must be terminated to satisfy the immediate whim of the mother.
Pro-Choice recognizes this and chooses to, instead, focus a morbid level of attention on the shame, fear and dignity of those whose bodies were taken from them by force. It is reasonable to consider the experiences of a woman who becomes pregnant due to rape. It is compassionate to provide extraordinary care and protection for women in this situation. No one disputes this. But Pro-Choice is not interested in this at all. Their primary goal is to win the argument and they will use any means necessary.
In any given discussion you will likely experience a Pro-Choice advocate demand an explanation to cases of rape and incest. This is not because they are genuinely concerned with the woman involved and certainly not for the child that is created. They consistently bring this question up because they know they have the advantage. Pro-Life advocates are compassionate and deeply caring people and they are simply not prepared to argue against the emotional and physical experiences of a rape victim. This is why “You've never been raped! You can't make decisions for them!” can be a debate-ender with the distinct realization that Pro-Choice has “won.”
This is where my personal experience often plays an important role in shining a bright light onto the true motives of the Pro-Choice argument. The purpose of this question is, of course, to force a person to concede that in some situations it is acceptable to end the life of the baby. By doing so they can both shame the Pro-Life advocate into discussing the limitations of ending such a life while maintaining the illusion of moral superiority by claiming it is both compassionate and just.
The life of the baby should not lose value based solely upon how it was created, but any discussion of the parameters of when and how that life can be terminated in cases of rape merely places the Pro-Life advocate into an impossible situation. We have been bullied into being afraid to even mention the subject because it is terrible to experience both the emotional insecurity of challenging someone who may have experienced rape directly and the internal struggle of conceding that a baby must die in order to satisfy a sense of compassion or justice proposed solely by the Pro-Choice advocate.
I do not experience this. I am a victim of rape, or a survivor or whatever label is granted at any given time. Several years ago I entered the hotel room of a man who was visiting with the intention of taking him to dinner and a movie and instead found myself in the impossible situation of being overpowered. The experience was both blindingly fast and hellishly slow as I let go of my will to fight and prayed merely for the moment to pass. As I left I experienced a dizzying array of emotions from complete denial to terror to overwhelming shame. I never spoke about it to anyone.
I did not report it to the police and I did not go to the hospital. I simply resumed my life choosing to see it as a personal mistake of poor judgment. I recognized that I had no way to identify him as his internet persona was useless and as each day passed it became clear that my credibility lessened. I am male and I have no socially equipped set of rules to react to such a situation. Gay pornography is filled with aggressive men overpowering weaker ones. I convinced myself I was just too weak to withstand what many would consider aggressive sex.
It wasn't until I tested HIV+ later that the experience truly flooded back to me. He had mentioned “breeding” me and making me one of “his own.” Researching I discovered a disturbing trend of HIV+ gay men who intentionally target younger men to forcibly infect them with HIV. That is when I first spoke of the rape and I first experienced the range of responses. Most people responded with horror and compassion, but many responded with “Are you sure you didn't let it happen?”
It was in college that I learned how feminism views rape for men. In one class in particular the professor compared rape to racism and sexism in that only women can experience sexism and only black people can experience racism. Women, it seems, could only truly be raped because of male dominance and male rape was merely an extension of using a man as a woman. I protested and found myself the target of intense hostility among the women in particular most concerned with rape.
Somehow my personal violation was a mockery of their own and to think that I had any clue what it felt like for a woman just proved the depth of my misogyny.
In discussions on abortion I am often confronted with the “You don't know what its like” argument and while I do not often choose to mention it, sometimes it feels warranted. I do not like to use this experience as a weapon as I know others are not prepared to continue a discussion per their genuine concern for offending or upsetting me. I like to keep the playing ground equal and let the value of the ideas speak for themselves. But sometimes it needs to be stated that rape status is not the end of a conversation.
As I experienced with the college liberal women in class, I too have experienced with Pro-Choice advocates who seem genuinely offended that I would dare compare my own experience to that of a woman's. Rape and pregnancy is an idea they are arguing, but my point is to demonstrate that being a survivor or what-have-you provides insight but not authority on the discussion. Can I understand the terror and the emotional trauma of rape? Yes. Does it provide me more authority over the fate of unborn life? No.
Why is this important? As I mentioned, it has come to be obvious to me that Pro-Choice does not speak for rape out of concern for the unique experience of the small minority of women who become pregnant from this experience. They simply recognize it is a highly useful tool to quiet the opposition who does not know how to respond. They come from the perspective that men are the enemy and rape is the pentacle of evidence to this fact. When a woman is raped it is the culmination of all feminism has to demand as their reality. It gives them absolute moral authority to declare that they alone speak to this experience.
I challenge that.
My reality as a man who has been violated in the same way as the women they propose to speak for challenges the concept that the subject of rape and of abortion are the sole territories of women. I offend them because I force them to recognize that their bias against men is irrational and equal in disgust to any bias men have against women. To be truly equal requires the equality of our experiences in respect. Pro-Choice does not speak for those who have been raped, they use them to manipulate the argument to their own advantage.
The fear of rape is exaggerated when Pro-Choice continually declares that it must be a primary focus of abortion discussion. It manipulates the narrative that not only do Pro-Life advocates want to “force” you to remain pregnant as a punishment for your sexual freedom but they will also stand by coldly when you are raped and demand that you “incubate” the rapist's child. The absurdity is overshadowed by the ferocity of their emotional outcry and outrage.
Rape is a uniquely devastating experience, but it is not a life-ending one. Even with being infected with a terminal illness I can say that the human spirit and will moves forward. I am not given moral authority to murder my rapist. If he would have been caught and prosecuted the very people fighting for the termination of a baby as the result of rape would just as loudly protest the death penalty for my rapist.
A woman who reports her rape and is brave enough to find her voice in that hour of deepest insecurity and shame can choose to prevent pregnancy from occurring within the small window between the attack itself and the reporting the next day. It is important to note that many Pro-Choice advocates find themselves unable to answer the question of what happens if a woman reports her pregnancy was due to rape 5, 6 or 7 months into the pregnancy. It seems the question falls in the time in-between and while I cannot speak for all, for myself I feel strongly that the life created from the horrible experience is valuable and healing and should not be extinguished out of fear or shame.
My inability to become pregnant does not silence my voice in speaking for the unborn. The lack of experience in this horrible trauma does not silence your voice to speak out for the unborn. We must find our voice. I am an example of the true inhumanity that is perpetuated by the Pro-Choice movement. They devalue the rape of a man just as they devalue the life of a baby inside the womb. They do not speak for the protection or sanctity of the woman. They speak only for their own mythology that women are lined up, forced to become pregnant and enslaved inside kitchens for their whole lives.
We must not back down from this important subject. A woman who becomes pregnant from rape should be given permission to recognize the blessing every child brings, even in the darkest of hours. Even if she feels she is not prepared to nurture this life, she should be given the support and love to know that the soul inside her speaks louder than the decomposed rot inside the man who violated her. We have been bullied into believing that giving birth after rape is the single most horrible experience a woman can have and I challenge that.
Regardless of your stance on this very specific topic not nearly connected to abortion for abortion's sake, it is vital that we do not allow Pro-Choice to take ownership of the experience of rape itself. As you can see, when they do it becomes nothing more to them than a tool to manipulate those who care deeply for life. When you do not support their narrative they dismiss you or demean you and walk away.
My experience of being raped allows me to recognize the distinct emotional insecurity, anger and fear that a woman faces in the same experience. But shame, fear and certainly dignity do not give freedom to end innocent life. There is no dignity in ending the pregnancy caused, and there is no lack of dignity or “force” in allowing the child to develop naturally either. The reality that life is created when the earth is scorched should remind us of the beauty and wonder our creator has given us. No one has the choice to end that.
-Chad Felix Greene
Many thanks to Chad for this courageous post-I'm sick and tired of feminist supremacists ignoring the fact that men and children are also victims of rape. Chad, I wish you many blessings in the future-you're an example to us all.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
ARLINGTON, VA -- We will be passing by the Women's Equality Day rally on our way to see some of our extended family in DC and Maryland.
We got word that Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, will be there. So, I am expecting that the street harassers will be there, too - given this infamous moment in April, when misogynist Armored Saint (owner of this blog) sent her thugs down to the Unite Against the War on Women rallies on April 28.
Here is the first and only warning (outside of Twitter, of course) to anti-choicers. If you even dare photographing us or any of our sensitive info in any way, form or fashion for the MoronicProChoiceQuotes blog, you will be meeting our friend, photographed below.
Try us - that will be the last time you will do it. My family have the legal authority in Virginia (and in almost every other Southern US State) to shoot at anyone who endangers our lives. Which means that anti-choicers will be shot at if they even attempt to put us in danger while we pass by the Women's Equality Day rally in Arlington.
Keep talking, Jovan, and your fondest dreams will come true-you'll be some Bubba's prison bitch. Surprise, Surprise, look who's right in the middle of it, little miss 'everyone's a terrorist and I'm calling the FBI on all of you':
Girlyman Jovan via his 'minglecity' page-this would look nice on a post office wall:
Oops, looks like you're about to get DOXed, motherfucker...
I'd think twice next time you threaten someone online, mangina.
Update: And...poof...the image of the gun has magically disappeared from Jovan's death threat post. Sadly, for him, I already sent several screenies of the original to the FBI.
Hope he's got some Depends on hand. He's gonna need them in prison.
Update as of 8/28: In an unsurprising twist, the cowardly Jovan has deleted his death threat post:
Proving what an ineffectual feminist tool he really is. If he thinks that's gonna end the shitstorm he started, he is sadly mistaken. In a comedic twist, he has written a post attempting to portray me as a clinic-bombing terrorist in order to deflect the heat off his earlier threats against me. He's welcome to prove his accusations against me at any time (hand fed to him by Catshit aka Melissa Brewer). Consider yourself called out, Jovan. Again. Ya know, this being my second public death threat (the first being from Ted Shulman, now doing time for threatening prolife bloggers online) I really feel I've arrived as a prolife blogger. Too legit to quit now. Thanks Jovan, for revealing yet again the murderous heart of the culture of death. You be representin'.
Update as of 8/31: Jovan is now claiming that his death threat is due to him 'going off his meds':
His latest post playing the victim, claiming someone else wrote the death threat post and he 'hit autopost by accident' (a feature that Blogger doesn't offer). Hilarity ensues. You don't even lie well, Jovan, but you've got the victim act and 'it's someone else's fault' down pat, which makes you an icon for feminism. Congrats. If you think that's gonna undo what you've done, think again.
— eeeegads (@eeeegads) August 25, 2012
#prochoice FTR eugenics has nothing to do with embryos. It has everything to do with race and ethnicity.Stop conflating.
Whew! What a relief for those black (and female) embryos targeted for abortion today! At least they can die knowing moonbats were equal opportunity haters.
Obama may be losing most of America, but he can count on the fervent support of the extremely well-heeled abortion industry. Its political coffers are stuffed with cash, from both the sale of services and compulsory taxpayer subsidies. There’s no way Planned Parenthood will allow taxpayers to turn off the money spigot.
Remember, the Democrats were prepared to shut down the entire government, including a halt to military pay, to protect Planned Parenthood subsidies during the last debt crisis. When the Susan G. Komen Foundation threatened to cut off their cash, heads rolled. You don’t tug on Superman’s cape, you don’t spit into the wind, you don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger, and you don’t mess around with Planned Parenthood’s revenue stream.
Just a day after Live Action showed the world that Planned Parenthood is totally cool with “gendercide” – the selective abortion of health baby girls, up to five months into pregnancy, because the parents really wanted a boy – the Godzilla of abortion providers announced a million-dollar TV ad campaign attacking presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The ad buy targets Romney’s previous comments saying he would “get rid” of federal taxpayer funding for the abortion business and Planned Parenthood indicated the ad buy would target places like West Palm Beach, Florida; Des Moines, Iowa; and voters in northern Virginia.
“When Mitt Romney says ‘Planned Parenthood — we’re gonna get rid of that,’ Romney is saying he’ll deny women the birth control and cancer screenings they depend on,” the ad’s narrator says. “When Romney says, ‘Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes,’ he’s saying he’ll deny women the right to make their own medical decisions. And when his campaign can’t say whether he’d support equal pay protections … Romney’s putting your paycheck at risk.”
Answering a question from CNN affiliate KDSK of St. Louis, Romney listed a series of programs he would cut or eliminate as president in order to reduce the federal deficit:
“You get rid of Obamacare, but there are others. Planned Parenthood, we’re gonna get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I would eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, both excellent programs, but we can’t afford to borrow money to pay for these things.”
You tax serfs need to get it through your thick skulls: you’re not allowed to “get rid of” compulsory taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood. That’s what “compulsory” means, you know. It doesn’t matter if the government is tumbling into total fiscal meltdown, or many Americans find Planned Parenthood’s activities morally objectionable. Their hand will be forever in your wallet.
I’d joke about how this principle can be found floating in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution, but Planned Parenthood funding actually transcends the Constitution, which is much more subject to electoral will. The Constitution also has a quaint obsession with the notion of “states’ rights.” Your state had better not get any big ideas about refusing to pay Planned Parenthood, either.
Of course, Planned Parenthood’s political operatives will seek to paint Romney’s prolife views as “extreme,” even though they are shared by a fast-growing majority of Americans, across the partisan divide.
Planned Parenthood’s political and funding machine is a great example of the corruption inherent when Big Business fuses with Big Government… although strangely enough, passionate critics of Big Business never mention this particular example. (Hello, OccuTards?) The Planned Parenthood defense mirrors the way Big Government protects its flab from reformers: if you oppose any aspect of what PP does, you “hate women” or are an “enemy of women’s health.”
All of the many dollars pouring into this massive, billion-dollar company – which also receives $487 million in government contracts and taxpayer subsidies – melts into a vast financial slush. According to its defenders, every dollar taken away is a dollar pinched from “women’s health,” while no particular dollar goes to abortions or political campaigns.
Well, two can play at that game. Every nickel of that $1.4 million ad campaign against Mitt Romney can be portrayed as a dollar extracted from Romney supporters by force, using exactly the same logic that says all of Planned Parenthood’s money is somehow tied to “women’s health.” The fusion of identity politics, mission creep, and compulsive force is always ugly. So are demands for obedience, at the expense of conscience.
In the 2004 presidential election, President Bush used “dog whistle” politics during a debate with John Kerry by subtly linking the Dred Scott case to Roe v. Wade. This year, Republican vice presidential pick Paul Ryan is more explicit about his views. He supported a bill to outlaw all abortions and some contraceptives, and in 2010 he said that the “the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake” in Roe v. Wade that it made in the 1857 Dred Scott case:
Yet, identifying who “qualifies” as a human being has historically proved to be more difficult than the above examples suggest. Twice in the past the U.S. Supreme Court—charged with being the guardian of rights—has failed so drastically in making this crucial determination that it “disqualified” a whole category of human beings, with profoundly tragic results.
The first time was in the 1857 case, Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court held, absurdly, that Africans and their American descendants, whether slave or free, could not be citizens with a right to go to court to enforce contracts or rights or for any other reason. Why? Because “among the whole human race,” the Court declared, “the enslaved African race were not intended to be included…[T]hey had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” In other words, persons of African origin did not “qualify” as human beings for purposes of protecting their natural rights. It was held that, since the white man did not recognize them as having such rights, they didn’t have them. The implication was that Africans were property—things that white persons could choose to buy and sell. In contrast, whites did “qualify,” so government protected their natural rights.
Every person in this country was wounded the day this dreadful opinion was handed down by this nation’s highest tribunal. It made a mockery of the American idea that human equality and rights were given by God and recognized by government, not constructed by governments or ethnic groups by consensus vote. The abhorrent decision directly led to terrible bloodshed and opened up a racial gap that has never been completely overcome. The second time the Court failed in a case regarding the definition of “human” was in Roe v. Wade in 1973, when the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake. At what point in time does a human being exist, the state of Texas asked. The Court refused to answer: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In other words, the Court would not “qualify” unborn children as living persons whose human rights must be guaranteed.
At the core, today’s “prochoice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “prochoice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “prochoice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.
In contrast, prolife conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person’s right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person’s right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature—the “law of the jungle”—the determination of who “qualifies” as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right.
As of the year 2000, legal abortion reduced the U.S. population by about 11 percent. Reduction in population translates into an equivalent percentage reduction in economic output, according to economists. This means that abortion has cut today’s 15 trillion economy by at least $1.7 trillion.
The core of our entitlements crisis lies in dropping population growth rates, resulting in an aging population. This places a growing tax burden on a smaller labor force to cover the retirement and health costs of our elderly. The current deficit in Social Security is due to this shrunken work force, diminished in size due the ravages of legal abortion.
Whether or not Todd Akin bows to pressure to exit his Senate race will not change the fact that the core problem in our country is moral and the poor economy reflects this.
When Republicans try to hide from morality and abortion, they hurt the party and our country.
'Inspections would put up barriers to women seeking abortions.' Nail salons have stricter inspection standards. What are some other lame excuses you've heard from the self-policing abortion industry? Let's highlight some of them here.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
View the Planned Parenthood document here.
My personal faves from this moronic manual:
Science has outdone us, so let's call unborn babies babies so we can get them in the door and abort that pregnancy tissue!
Imagine that, a debate about the legality of killing others framed by whether its right or wrong! Quickly distract them with 'aren't you glad it wasn't you?' If it wasn't wrong, would there be any need to distract others from the wrongness of it? Fucking simpletons. It's incredible how gullible they truly believe others are.
We, as Christians, know that life begins at conception.
For a married Christian woman who is trying to conceive, the chances are high that many times when the menstrual cycle arrives it is actually a miscarriage of a very, very young child.
If your period is late, even by a few days, it is likely that you have just lost your child. Your precious baby, just a few weeks old, and still microscopic, is dead. This is a time for you to mourn.
It is also a time to prepare your child to enter Heaven. Personhood Funeral Services, LLC provides funeral planning, memorial service planning and caters to the needs of grieving Christian families.
Please click SHOP in the toolbar above to learn about our Funeral Service offerings.
Up next: funerals and caskets for used condoms, blowjobs, and a huge national funeral mourning the loss of common sense, dignity and class of prochoice, all of whom have clearly committed suicide.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Planned Parent is an odd duck. On the one hand, it claims to be a stalwart defender of the dignity of women. On the other hand, this is what Planned Parenthood is billing to attendees of the Democratic National Convention as its “signature party” — with main pimp...err speaker Cecile Richards.
“Sex, Politics and Cocktails.” My, doesn’t that just scream respect for women?
One wonders if Planned Parenthood will be handing out free condoms at this shindig. After all, contraception is one of their favorite freebie offerings at college campuses and their clinics. Maybe Planed Parenthood could have DNC-themed condoms offered at the end of the event as party favors. Seems in keeping with the general theme, right? And the fact that this party goes for almost five hours and has a “planned” ending time at 2AM surely ensures that everyone is going to be making free and respectful choices, surely?
Oh, and all of this is basically paid for by you and me. Neat, huh?
“Sex, Politics and Cocktails” is a very common theme for Planned Parenthood parties, from New England to Florida to California (and California) to Washington State (that last one with the promotional tagline “Put your politics where your cocktails are” — nice?).
Clearly then this is considered a good idea by Planned Parenthood at the institutional level – it’s not just some desperate attempt by an independent party coordinator to separate their soiree from the pack of parties at the Democratic convention this year.
So the next time you hear Democrats accuse Republicans of waging a “war on women”, ask yourself: what does it say when a Democrat-sponsored convention invites men to come to a party linking “sex”, “politics” and “cocktails” where all the men can bet the women in attendance support untethering sex from babies, and who can’t even raise the excuse that contraception costs them (or the men) money? Oh and there are cocktails. Plenty of cocktails. Does that sound like a perfect recipe for encouraging respect for women?
The party could be more accurately billed as “Free Sex, Two Drink Minimum.” Think of all the abortion revenue it could generate! Cha-ching!
Welcome to the Democratic Convention. Welcome to Planned Parenthood’s idea of respecting women.