Another Blog From Neosecularist.com

Posts Tagged ‘Pro-Life’

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

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?

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?

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?