Another Blog From Neosecularist.com

Archive for the ‘abortion’ Category

Just Abort Black Babies (And Maybe The Hispanic And Latino Ones)

In abortion, culture, politics, racism, right to life on June 21, 2012 at 10:48 am

A South Carolina Church is in deep trouble with the Arianna Nation for a sign it has posted outside its church doors which reads, “Ultimate Racism – Abortion Targets Black Babies”.  This is not a laughter matter to the liberal pro-aborts over there who never miss an opportunity to condemn anyone for trying to stop an abortion, or speak out against it.  But when we talk explicitly and candidly about abortion, what abortion really is – the killing of an unborn child – the folks that support the killing of unborn children under the guise of “reproductive choice” become indignant and restless.  And that includes other blacks, as the Arianna Nation point out:

The sign was eventually taken down due to pressure from African-American leaders.

So – wouldn’t this problem of abortion go away much faster if only black babies were aborted, and Hispanic and Latino babies as well?   And, couldn’t we learn a lot from the Chinese about abortion, and bring that knowledge to America, to every single black and Hispanic and Latino, and Asian, community in America, where that information is sorely welcome and encouraged by other blacks and Hispanics and Latinos?

It isn’t whites killing black babies in the womb.  It’s black mothers making the conscious decision to kill their babies in the womb that ultimately leads to the killing of black babies in the womb.  Or, if we wanted to take the pro-abort position, what is in that woman’s womb isn’t even a black child to begin with, so that helps to ease the conscience as the abortionist plunges their deadly sharp instrument of torture into her to remove whatever it is inside her womb she things she is better living without.

If that is not a black child inside the womb, then perhaps we can make the case that there is nothing racist with pro-aborts setting up abortion clinics in black neighborhoods and encouraging black women to have abortions, rather than give birth, because they are poor, single, unmarried women whose babies fathers have abandoned them.  But, if that is a black child inside the womb, and Planned Parents is encouraging the woman to abort it – what are we supposed to call that?  Isn’t that the message this church was trying to convey with its sign?

Advertisements

A Challenge To Liberals Who Fight For “Reproductive Rights”: What Are “Reproductive Rights”? Be Warned – You Will Not Be Able To Meet That Challenge

In abortion, politics, women on June 15, 2012 at 11:10 am

These are the faces of two women who don’t know what they are talking about.

It’s a simple challenge, really.  (But not if you are a liberal and you support it)  However, dare to challenge any liberal feminist in America who so passionately fights for, and on behalf of, “reproductive rights”, to define exactly what “reproductive rights” are and they fall flat on their face trying to answer that challenge.  It sounds so simple, and yet it is the most difficult question for any liberal feminist to answer because they cannot answer it honestly.  They cannot answer it honestly because to do so is to literally shoot themselves and their cause to smithereens.  In other words, if they could answer it honestly, they wouldn’t be calling it “reproductive rights”.  Because calling what liberal feminists are really advocating for in “reproductive rights” is the equivalent of calling crap with whip cream and sprinkles a chocolate ice cream dessert.

Two Michigan congress women (Democrats) Rep. Lisa Brown (West Bloomfield) and Rep. Barb Byrum (Onondaga), are in a feminist driven psycho-babble hissy fit because they were not allowed to speak on because of “reproductive rights” on the House floor.  They naturally blamed anti-woman and misogynist Republicans for this, despite the fact that the minority leader in the Michigan House, Kate Segal, (a Democrat) also refused to let them speak.  They had wanted to speak about an upcoming House bill that would, if passed, make it harder for women to enjoy legally protected “reproductive rights”.

“I’d love to know what I said that was offensive,” Brown told The Huffington Post. “It was an anti-choice bill regarding abortion, which obviously involves a vagina, so, you know, I don’t know what word I’m supposed to use otherwise.”

Vagina? That is the best this liberal feminist can come up with as to why she was not allowed to speak?

And of Byrum?  She had wanted to introduce an even more juvenile and nonsensical amendment to the bill that would force all men wanting a vasectomy to show proof it was a medical emergency.  As if there is even the remotest comparison to a vasectomy and what liberal feminists lovingly refer to as “reproductive rights”.  By the way – that challenge still stands.  What are “reproductive rights”?

“It’s my impression that I’m being banned from speaking as a result of my use of the term vasectomy — a medical procedure,” Byrum told The Huffington Post.

This is why it is dangerous to elect liberals, and especially liberal women, to political office.  Two liberal women who cannot for the life of themselves understand why they were not allowed to speak other than their fervent belief it was over their choice of words – vagina and vasectomy, respectively.

But there is another side to this story:

Ari Adler, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Jase Bolger (R-Marshall), said the lawmakers were banned from speaking because of their behavior, not because of their word choice. “They behaved in a way that disrupted the decorum of the House,” Adler said. “For Brown, it was not the words she used, but the way she used them that resulted in her being gaveled down.” In Byrum’s case, Adler said, “I hate to put it this way, but she essentially had a temper tantrum on the House floor.”

We ought not be surprised to hear of liberal feminists having a temper tantrum – that is what they do.  Liberal feminists act only through their emotions, without thinking ahead, rather than acting through reason and rationality.  Case in point?  Challenge these two liberal feminists from Michigan, and any liberal feminists anywhere, to define “reproductive rights”.

This is a very serious challenge.  And it is a serious challenge for the reason that not one single liberal, feminist or otherwise, can answer that question, or ever has answered that question.  How do we know?  Because in their indoctrination of young, impressionable girls in high school and college, more often than not, uneducated, liberal feminists throw out cushy, safe and feel all warm and fuzzy inside buzz words like “reproductive rights”, “pro-choice”, “women’s rights”, women’s health issues”, etc.  But they are never candid in the definitions of these buzz words, and we all know the reason why. euphemisms

So again, the challenge is – if you, as a liberal feminist, really want “reproductive rights”, and really want laws governing the legal recognition and full protection of these “reproductive rights”, what exactly, and honestly, are you talking about?

On This Mother’s Day – Would You Help A Woman Kill Her Unborn Child?

In abortion, politics, pro-life on May 12, 2012 at 11:43 am

How successful was this year’s St. Valentines Day Unborn Baby Massacre?  Well, liberals and Democrats are at it again, hoping to make another killing this Mother’s Day.  Pro-abortion murderess, Kirstin Gillibrand, is urging women to donate money to Emily’s List, which is a pro-abortion organization that helps to elect other pro-abortion Democrat women to congress.  Disguised as “reproductive freedom”, it’s really all about abortion to them.  How?  Birth control and contraception are legal, and nobody is going to take that away from women.  We just aren’t going to pay for it for them.  But a woman cannot have “reproductive freedom” in its truest sense, if she does not also have the ‘freedom” to have an abortion, which we know to be the killing of an unborn child.  Although liberals and Democrats are proud to be, and to label themselves as “pro-choice”, most of them are extremely ashamed when they are challenged on just what abortion is.  No convinced?  Challenge Kirstin Gillibrand on what abortion is and see what her response it; see her fluster; see her evade the question; see her backtrack; see her inject non-sequitors and other useless information into her response.  That is the epitome of liberalism.  Liberals deal strictly, religiously, in emotions.  Not facts, not reality.  The reality is – donating money to Emily’s List helps that organization provide campaign funding to pro-abortion Democrat women.  There is no guarantee any pro-abortion Democrat women will win, of course.  But if any of them do – there is good and strong indication all that money initially donated to Emily’s List, which was then dispersed and used to spread more awareness of, and about, their candidates of “choice” might have been a factor in their victories.  This Mother’s Day, do you really want to celebrate the woman who gave birth to you by supporting a cause that works tirelessly to prevent, by killing them, future children from celebrating their mother’s on Mother’s day?  Because these dead children will not have mothers, or fathers, to celebrate on any day of the year.  And they won’t have birthday’s of their own to celebrate either.  That is the legacy of abortion.  over 50 million dead unborn children.  That is the legacy of liberalism.  What would have been the legacy of all those 50 million unborn children slaughtered in the womb?

Oh, Peas! NYT Tries To Show “Absurdity” Of Being Pro-life By Equating Living Plants With Unborn Children

In abortion, politics, satire on May 1, 2012 at 1:27 pm

The New York Times, which never met an unborn human child it would ever try to save from being aborted, or ever cared whether it was killed in or out of the womb, wants us to save plants (peas in this narrative) from being “slaughtered” on the vine and eaten.  Arguing that the chemical reactions and stimuli responses that occur within its roots are actually the peas talking to one another, Michael Marder, writing for the NYT, asserts that peas (plants in general) are capable of feelings, emotions and can feel pain, in the same way pro-lifers insist that unborn children (fetuses) do, and therefore ought to be protected from humans harvesting and consuming them.

“Imagine a being capable of processing, remembering and sharing information — a being with potentialities proper to it and inhabiting a world of its own. Given this brief description, most of us will think of a human person, some will associate it with an animal, and virtually no one’s imagination will conjure up a plant.”

In other words, how can anyone really be pro-life if they don’t also extend that argument to plants.  And if they don’t extend that pro-life argument to plants, then how can they really be pro-life?  And if they don’t extend that pro-life argument to plants, then they are hypocrites.  And if they are hypocrites, then it gives justification for continuing to ridicule them and ignore them all the while unborn children are being killed in and out of the womb and the NYT is publishing absurd opinion pieces from radical, die-hard liberals disguised as satire.  The NYT, not one liberal, thinks of an unborn child as a human being, so why would any of them ever think “a being capable of processing, remembering and sharing information — a being with potentialities proper to it and inhabiting a world of its own” would “conjure” a fetus?  But of course they would “conjure up a plant”, in a futile attempt to be absurd and to show how “absurd” the pro-life movement is, and is being, trying to protect unborn children, even though they neither believe a plant feels and reacts to its environment in the same way, or is remotely similar to, a fetus in any sense of the definition any more than they want to believe a fetus feels anything in its enclosed water-filled environment during its nine months of development and growth.  Because if a fetus can feel, then it can certainly feel pain as it is being ripped in, and to, pieces by an abortionist.  And if a fetus can feel, and feel pain, how can it do that if it is not conscious?  And if a fetus is conscious is it not alive?  The NYT has, suspiciously, not yet demanded the passage of legislation that grants “planthood” status to peas and other fruits and vegetables, whatever life-bearing seeds, they think ought to be protected from being slaughtered in or out of its root, vine, stalk, etc.  Perhaps not everyone at the very liberal NYT is yet convinced that peas ought to be granted “planthood” status.  If they need more proof to show how “human-like” peas are, perhaps they ought to employ sonograms on pea plants.  But if they do, would they know not to “rape” the plant using the “trans-carpel” type of ultrasound?

The Threat Of “Back Room” Abortions Does Not Justify The Continuation Of Legal Abortions; A Preamble To War…

In abortion, politics, pro-life, states rights on April 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm

Socialist Bernie Sanders (Ind. VT) has entered the “war on women” charade with a very direct response to conservatives and the pro-life movement.  Says Sanders:

“We are not going back.”

What does Sanders mean by that?  He asserts:

“We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions…we are not going back to the days when women could not have full access to birth control…we are not going back to the days of wide-scale domestic violence, [talking about the Violence Against Women Act]…further, not only are we going to protect and expand those laws which deal directly with women’s rights…”

That some women, once Roe vs. Wade is overturned and states begin to enact legislation to protect unborn children from abortion procedures, may feel compelled, driven, cornered into a “back room” abortion situation is not enough to legitimately or logically keep legal any procedure that unnecessarily kills an unborn child.  Women already have full access to birth control and contraception through the law.  In other words, no one is passing laws to prevent women from accessing birth control or contraception.  However it is not the prerogative or responsibility of taxpayers to pay the cost for women.  And if a woman cannot afford the cost herself that in no way diminishes, or amounts to, a lack of access.  Domestic violence is a serious issue, but do we really need another heavy, expensive layer of federal bureaucracy like the Violence Against Women Act, when these issues can be resolved more effectively, more efficiently at stale and local levels?  Like “hate crimes” laws, the Violence Against Women Act is another example of a needless, cumbersome, purely political, and politically correct, driven, ideological agenda that does nothing to prevent or stop domestic violence, but it sure puts a hell of a lot of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of liberal organizations and lawyers groups.

Sanders continues his directness:

“The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win.  But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive.”

And let this be a message to Bernie Sanders, the Democrat Party, and all liberals:

We, conservatives, are pushing forward as well, with our political war, fighting against the war on the unborn, the assault on the U.S. Constitution and American freedom, the personal attacks on our character, our beliefs and our morality (of which liberals can challenge – anytime).  And let us be very clear – we’re not going back either.  We’re not going back to a time when abortion on demand was politically impossible to counter; we’re not going back to a time when it was easy to break into America and long remain, and where liberals would provide to these criminal aliens a sanctuary and a protective status; we’re not going back to a time when liberals could erode and degrade America’s military and military might, prowess and reach anywhere in this world; we’re not going back to a time when liberals, through media outlets and through the public education system, were able to get away with denigrating American history, America’s true founding and the facts concerning our founding fathers, America’s Constitution, American freedom and liberty and what it actually means to be an American; and we are not going back to a time when it was easier for liberals to put America’s sovereignty in jeopardy.  We also are expanding the “battlefield”.  And we, not liberals, are, and will remain, on the political offense.  You (liberals) want to fight a (political) war with us (conservatives) – bring it on!  We couldn’t be more excited, more eager, more ready, more resolved to win.  And – we will win.  Wanna put a wager on that?

Liberals Are Being Hanged By Chinese Activist Chen Guangcheng

In abortion, politics, pro-life on April 30, 2012 at 9:19 am

If a Chinese activist was ever apprehended in China for promoting women’s “right’s” or any such nonsensical liberal causes, liberals would naturally be up in arms and demand Obama, or whoever was President take extreme action against China, wouldn’t you think?  But what are liberals supposed to do with Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng, who, up until the time he escaped, was being held prisoner against his will in his own home by the Chinese government.  The liberal dilemma?  Chen is no mere, no ordinary champion of human rights.  And he is certainly not the type of human rights champion liberals ever support.  In fact, liberals despise champions like Chen on a daily basis, calling these type of champions anti-woman.  You see, the kind of activism and human rights campaign Chen had been arrested by the Chinese government for was for his involvement in trying to stop his own government into forcing women to undergo forced sterilization and forced abortions.  (All party of their one-child per family law that liberals support because it is also population control)  So you can see how this puts liberals in a very serious quandary.  Chen was trying to stop abortions from happening.  How does that look on a liberal’s resume’ should he or she show any support, or have any compassion, for anyone who tried to stop the killing of unborn children?  And how do liberal’s react to this news; and how do they want U.S. government to handle this very delicate situation?  (Delicate only to liberals, because on the one hand Chen is a human rights activist, but on the other hand he is advocating for a position in the absolute contrary to what liberals support themselves.)  Arianna Nation (HuffPost) S.S. propagandist, Tom Doctoroff (Doctoroff?) says:

“Our instincts are to cheer him on and use this case to dramatize the flagrant human rights abuses that occur in modern China. We expect our government to take a vigorous stand against the Chinese Communist Party.  However, we must not sensationalize this affair. If Chen’s saga devolves into an “us versus them” clash of hegemonic resolve, it will affect America’s relationship with China for years to come.”

No, indeed, do not “sensationalize this affair”.  Because to do so would endanger liberals in America, and put them squarely at odds with their militant pro-abortion stance and their militant pro-abortion agenda here in America.  Chen is all but throwing the noose around the necks of liberals, tightening, squeezing the rope and hanging liberals with their own hypocrisy.  He has completely put liberal hypocrites, like Doctoroff (Doctoroff?) in serious panic mode, and increased their stress level a thousand fold.  Liberals, because of who they are, must support Chen because he is a human rights activist, but they will not support him as vocally, as passionately, as outwardly as they would if Chen was fighting for gay rights in China, or for better wages and working conditions for Chinese workers.  Liberal hypocrites will only put on a facade, feigning intrigue and concern for Chen, but really hoping Chen simply, mysteriously, vanishes so they, liberal hypocrites, like Tom Doctoroff (Doctoroff?) don’t have to deal with this sticky and most awkward situation any longer.  Because if liberals start supporting activists all the way over in China who advocate stopping abortions and sterilizations, what happens when the news of that support gusts into America and Planned Parenthood gets winds of it?

So – Women Whose Husbands Oppose Abortion Ought To Refuse Them Sex? Is That About Right?

In abortion, politics, pro-life, women on April 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm

Or - if you don't let me kill my unborn child, you'll never have sex with me again! (Photo: Women.com)

A new strategy is being deployed in the so-called “war on women”, which liberals insist is a “war on a woman’s right to access birth control and contraception, but in which we really know is code for abortion rights, and the right of women to kill their unborn children.  Arianna Nation (HuffPost) S.S. Blogger, John Blumenthal, calls on all women who happen to be married to Republican men, or whose husband will vote Republican (and vote against Barack Obama) to stop having sex with them until they have a 180 degree change of heart and vote for Barack Obama, who is guaranteed to ensure the slaughter of unborn babies continues.  Some campaign strategy!  Is bowing to a woman’s “prerogative” to retain the right to kill an unborn child worth the price of “admission”?  And – how exactly does that work if the wife is a Republican and the husband is a Democrat, like Mary Matalin and James Carville?  Can anyone imagine Carville demanding Matalin support abortion or he won’t have sex with her?

No sex for/with Carville? Somehow I'm O.K. with that!

Blumenthal uses a non-sequitor in comparing abortion rights with a fictional play, Lysistrata, in which a woman withholds sex until the Peloponnesian War ends.  So, Blumenthal, who is a liberal, after-all, compares a very real war on unborn children to that of a fictional telling of a real war?  They say truth is stranger than fiction.  In this case the “truth” that liberals want women to deny their husbands sex until they support abortion is just as strange as the fiction that the “war on women” really has anything to do with a woman’s right to access birth control and contraception.

Arianna Nation (HuffPost) Appalled Federal Tax Dollars Going To Save Babies From Being Killed; Still Fine With Taxes Going To Kill Them

In abortion, politics, pro-life, taxes, women on April 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm

Killing unborn children in the womb using federal tax dollars makes the Arianna Nation coo with delight.  But a crisis pregnancy center that is using federal tax dollars to save unborn children from being killed in the womb angers and outrages, and mortifies, the very liberal, very pro-abortion, Arianna Nation.  There may be, however slight, some legitimacy to this “concern”, for you see, this crisis center, The Life Center of Midland, TX, according to the article, demands all its volunteers be Christians, and prove they are by writing in the church they worship at and the name of their pastor for a reference in their application form.  On their pdf. application form it does have a place with a “Church Reference”, but whether or not it is actually a prerequisite is dubious.  The Life Center, in its mission statement, does acknowledge its core Christian beliefs, and all applicant, staff and volunteers, are expected to adhere to that statement.  That The Life Center would make such demands, and receive federal tax dollars, is making liberals, and the Arianna Nation uncomfortable and queasy.  On the other hand – does anyone really believe liberals would be less appalled with using federal tax dollars to prevent a child from being killed in the womb if The Life Center did not have any religious language in its mission statement or on its application form?  Or, to put it another way, would liberals be as indignant and outraged if a pro-life atheist crisis pregnancy center was receiving federal tax dollars to save unborn babies from being aborted?  And even more provocative – would liberals be as indignant and outraged if a very religious, but very pro-abortion, pregnancy crisis center was receiving federal tax dollars and directing women to abortion clinics to kill their unborn children?

If Planned Parenthood Is “Worried” It Might Be Stung Again – It Has Good Reason To Be!

In abortion, politics on April 23, 2012 at 7:36 pm

Planned Parenthood has an awful lot to be worried about these days.  States are passing more and more laws restricting abortion; more and more Americans are pro-life, and many more Americans continue to switch from pro-abortion to pro-life; federal support for abortion funding is under scrutiny, and if Mitt Romney becomes the President, he is strongly believed to do more to end taxpayer funding of abortions and help usher in one or more Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe vs. Wade.  With all that on its plate, did the abortion provider ever think it would have to worry about whether its clientele was legit or engaging in covert undercover stings to show how corrupt, dishonest and hypocritical it also is?  It’s been stung before, after-all.  Now, Planned Parenthood wants to know if there is another undercover sting in the works.  Apparently, people are coming into clinics asking “peculiar” questions that are making Planned Parenthood staff “uncomfortable”.  (Is that even possible?)  Questions “about sex-selective abortions, such as how soon she can find out the gender of the fetus, by what means and whether she can schedule an abortion if she’s having a girl.”  This is unprecedented.  Planned Parenthood has never before had to actually stop and think about whether or not asking a question about a sex selection abortion, or any type of abortion, would not only get them into trouble but affect them morally.  Well, morality aside, they are obviously more concerned about being caught in a politically incorrect situation.  Planned Parenthood never cared whether or not it killed girl babies in the womb, or whether women coming into its clinics wanted to abort their child specifically because of its sex.  For that matter Planned Parenthood never before cared about killing babies in the womb if it was the wrong color or the wrong sexual orientation.  It’s a “woman’s choice, isn’t it?  If Planned Parenthood is that worried about people initiating undercover stings, it is only because Planned Parenthood knows a majority of Americans are pro-life, and even those that aren’t totally committed to the pro-abortion cause will condemn abortions performed for reasons revolving around sex selection, color and orientation.  The pro-life movement has worked vigorously, for decades, to expose how crooked and malevolent Planned Parenthood is, and to witness its demise.  In the end, however, wouldn’t it also be much more a bitter, but sweet, irony to see Planned Parenthood implode on its own politically incorrect petard?

17 Reasons To Vote For Mitt Romney, Defeat Barack Obama

In abortion, NARAL, pro-life, right to life, states rights on April 21, 2012 at 6:44 pm

NARAL – National Abortion Rights Action League – knows what a Mitt Romney win in 2012 will mean to abortion in America.  The abortion rights group has studied the patterns of all fifty states with regards to abortion, both those states with pro-life leaning legislatures, and those states with pro-abortion leaning legislatures.  Seventeen states have been identified by NARAL which would immediately seek to ban abortion in their states once Roe vs. Wade is overturned.  Since a Romney win means an almost certain push to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, and since NARAL knows conservative judges tend to be more strict Constitutionalists, and less activist, than liberals judges, any new appointment by a President Romney will be virtually guaranteed to support overturning the law that made abortion legal in America in 1973.  Any attempt to undermine abortion in America, and what is perceived (although not actually) a guaranteed Constitutional right, will be fiercely fought by NARAL and all pro-abortion groups, who consider laws banning abortion, abortion procedures and funding for abortion to be a “war on women”.  What we must keep in mind is that Obama will appoint liberal activist, pro-abortion, judges to the Supreme Court.  He has done it twice so far, with Sonya Sotomayer and Elana Kagan.  If elected to a second term, and given the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court Justice, he will do it again.  NARAL has identified seventeen states ready to ban abortion.  A Romney win will bring those states that much closer to making that a reality.  Unborn lives are at stake in this election, as in all elections.  In this election, however, pro-life supporters have much to gain with a Romney win, and much to lose with an Obama win.  Until Roe vs. Wade is overturned, all unborn children have their lives to lose, if their mothers so choose.  Romney winning the Presidency will set into motion the key events that will lead to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, allowing at least seventeen states to ban abortion.  Isn’t that seventeen very good reasons why we need to vote for Mitt Romney for President?