Another Blog From Neosecularist.com

Posts Tagged ‘abortion rights’

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?

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?

Why Government Needs To Be And To “Get In Women’s Vaginas”

In Uncategorized on May 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm

There is only one simple reason reason why government – and by that it is to mean law – needs to push, insert and penetrate its way into a woman’s vagina.  That is to protect unborn children from being killed by women who would rather not take the responsibility of carrying them to term and delivering them.  Faux Republican women, in a new Funny or Die Video featuring “actress Kate Beckinsale, Judy Greer and Andrea Savage “spread” the message that the one thing women really want in their vagina is the government.”  This video is merely an unthoughtful diversionary tactic, a non-sequitor and a blatant lie.  Would anyone challenge these actresses on why they support the killing of unborn children?  Would these actresses ever admit they do support the killing of unborn children?  Because they do, although they don’t come out and say it.  Isn’t that an act of shallow cowardice?  Millions of unborn children have been killed through abortion because of women like the actresses in this unfunny video that will leave many more unborn children dying in abortion clinic rooms until we not only do more to “get into their vaginas” but get in their faces as well and demand to know how they can support the killing of unborn children, and what value, what merit that actually has to society, and to the women having the abortions.  Or – is killing an unborn child “funny” to women like Kate Beckinsale?

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?

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.

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?