How Might I Serve Thee? Sexism From a Pro-Lifer? Monday, Oct 31 2011

I would have to say this is the most upsetting tweet I’ve seen in a while.  @EndChoice tweeted this this morning.

Having been raised in the sexist south (yeah it is, really), to say this tweet pissed me off is putting it mildly.  While I have no problem if a woman CHOOSES to ‘serve’ her husband, I do have a problem with men assuming we’re supposed to. 

Biologically, women will never be equal to men.  This is not to say women are less than men, just different.  I believe men and women should compliment each other, and I don’t mean just verbally. 

I actually believe children today would be better off if their mom were able to stay home and raise them.  Should she be forced to?  No.  In today’s world of ‘I gotta have it’ i.e. satellite television, smart phones, etc., it’s impossible for most people to live off of 1 salary.  Which means most women have to work, even if they don’t want to. 

A lot of women who have to work full time jobs, must also keep the house in order.  This includes everything she would do even if she was not working.  Paying the bills? Check. Doing the laundry? Check. Staying up all night with sick children? Check.  And the man?  He worked his 8 hours, came home, watched Monday night football, and went to bed to rest up for next day.  Thankfully, it’s not always like that.  Some men really do do their share, and respect their wives as people.

As an example, Katie* works a part time job.  She and her husband have an 18 month old little boy.  Every night, Katie bathes the baby then hands him off to her husband while she takes her own bath.  Her husband helps him brush his teeth, and gets him ready for night night, while Katie relaxes in the bathtub.  She’s happy, he’s happy, the baby’s happy.  To me, that’s equal partnership.

Another example, Nancy* works a full time job.  Yet she is also responsible for keeping the home.  She cooks, she cleans, she does the laundry.  She caters to his needs. I don’t think her husband even knows how to boil water, seriously.  He probably pays the bills, because you know, some men think women are untrustworthy with money.  One day while in the lunchroom at work, her husband called (he calls every day, many times a day) and before she got off the phone, she had to name every person in the room (probably 10 people).  Sad?  For me it would be, but she is completely happy with her life.

I’ve now convinced myself @EndChoice is a plant. But he did bring to light something that pro-choicer’s and I agree on, so it wasn’t a total loss.  I’m recommending blocking, filtering out, not engaging, or just plain ignoring.  That sexist idiot isn’t worth the stress.

Rant complete!

*Names changed

2 Responses »

 

Pro-Aborts Deny Abortion Kills Human Fetuses Sunday, Sep 18 2011

In the last few days, weeks, maybe even months, I’ve had this same argument over and over.  The conversation may be a little different each time, but it always comes back to the same thing.  I say abortion kills a human fetus, or z/e/f, or baby, and they come back denying it.  It’s time to refute this myth pro-choicer’s believe. 

One of the conversations started with the tweet below.

To which @Jinfurei responded:

This started because I said “Abortion kills a human being”, which is a whole nuther debate!  @Jingurei responded by saying “Abortion results in a dead fetus. That is all.”  It got really interesting when I responded “At least you admit #abortionkills”, because @Jingurei denies abortion kills a fetus, a z/e/f, a baby, or whatever. 

First let’s define the word ‘kill’.  Merriam Webster defines KILL as “to deprive of life : cause the death of“.  This of course is not the only definition, but it is the first one on the list. 

I’ve been debating pro-aborts for awhile, and although they still surprise me from time to time, this belief didn’t surprise me at all.  Why?  Because in order to be killed, one must first have life.  Pro-aborts deny a fetus is alive, so they can deny killing it.  Make sense? 

So back to Merriam Webster we go to define ALIVE: “having life : not dead or inanimate”.  Again, this is not the only definition, but it is the first one on the list.  If you know how pro-aborts think, you know they will question “having life”.  So lets dig a little deeper. 

Merriam Webster defines LIFE as: “the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body“

So ‘having life’, is having the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body.

What would distinguish a live body from a dead body?  Do EMT’s measure brain waves when determining if someone is alive at the scene of an accident?  No, of course they don’t.  They listen for a heartbeat.  It’s the heartbeat that is the distinguishing factor in whether someone is alive, or dead.  A fetuses heart typically begins to beat at 21 days gestation.  Therefore it’s indisputable that a fetus is alive. 

@Jingurei is not the only one who denies this fact.  @RealtinConnor does also.  In response to my agreeing (re-tweeting) with another Twitter user on @RealtinConnor’s not knowing when life begins, he responded with this.

 

And much the same as I did with @Jingurei, I responded to @RealinConnor with this:

And he responded:

If you cease to continue living, you’re dead.  It’s pretty black and white.  But pro-aborts care more about their quality of life, than about life itself.  @RealtinConnor’s reasoning is mind boggling.

Read this from the bottom up:

People like @Jingurei and @RealtinConnor, go to great lengths denying that abortion kills a human fetus.  Again, they deny a fetus is alive, so they can in turn deny killing it.  All this to protect a woman’s ‘right to choose’ to kill her baby.

6 Responses »

 

Former Pro-Lifer Throws Babies Under The Bus Saturday, Apr 30 2011

About a month ago, I wrote a blog post titled About Being a Sex Positive Feminist, and Prolife.  This post followed a lengthy conversation with @irishginge, who at that time, was a self-proclaimed “Sex Positive, Pro-Life, Feminist”.  I’m sad, though not at all surprised, that her pro-life status has been officially changed to pro-abort.

 

The fact is, she has been pro-choice for some time, and perhaps all along.  A few months ago, she tweeted this, in response to the weak attempt by Republicans to de-fund Planned Parenthood.  In this tweet, she clearly stated she was pro-life, but not at the expense of Planned Parenthood being de-funded!

 

There is no other explanation, sex is more important to ‘Sex-Positive Feminists’ than protecting innocent human life.  Planned Parenthood feeds this frenzy by promoting sex, under the guise of ‘safe sex’, and ‘caring for women’.  The more young women they convince that having sex without consequences is acceptable, the more money Planned Parenthood makes on killing the innocent human life that results.  The only way to prevent pregnancy and abortion, is not to have sex.

I hope she will change her mind (again), but I sincerely doubt that will happen.  She has proven to me (which I already knew), and perhaps herself, that you can’t hang with a community of pro-aborts and not ultimately become one yourself.

19 Responses »

 

What Is It About That Word ‘Baby’? Sunday, Apr 17 2011

We endear what’s close to our hearts, whether it be a cute little kitten, a ragged teddy bear from our childhood, or a hand-made quilt handed down from our grandmother.  What would we do to protect anything that’s close to our hearts?  The answer is, anything and everything in our power.

I’ve had several conversations recently with pro-choicer’s, and found myself (again) defending my use of the term ‘baby‘.  I’ve stated that ‘baby’ is a term of endearment, and the choicer’s are unable to love a fetus as pro-lifers do, as a baby.  It got me thinking about the millions of baby’s I don’t know.  What would I do to protect them?  What would you do?

Most of us have seen toddler’s attempting to climb out of a shopping cart, while the mother has her back turned.  What did you do?  This baby didn’t belong to us.  We didn’t know the baby, or for that matter, the mother.  But it was a life worth protecting, so we did everything we could to protect the baby from harm.  Again, this was not our baby, but we protected it none the less. 

What if we were to see a mother intentionally pushing the baby in the stroller, out into a busy intersection?  Her goal?  To rid herself of the responsibility of taking care of the baby.  It’s not our baby, so why is it our business?    We don’t stop her because what she’s doing is illegal, we stop her because it’s the right thing to do.  We stop her because it’s a life worth protecting.

Pro-lifer’s feel the same way regarding an unborn baby, a fetus.  The word ‘fetus‘ is a cold medical/scientific term, whereas ‘baby’ gives one the image of an infant swaddled in a soft blanket, while cooing at it’s mother. 

Pro-choice feminists endear the term ‘fetus’, while rejecting the term ‘baby’.  Why?  Would you be able to abort something you thought of as a baby?  Neither can they.  They protect themselves emotionally, by regarding this tiny human individual, by the term fetus. 

This doesn’t change the fact that a 3 month old infant, is the exact same human it was when it was a 3 month old fetus.  The difference is, the 3 month old infant has legal rights, where the 3 month old fetus has no legal rights at all. 

This must change.  A baby’s life is worth protecting, at any stage of development.

4 Responses »

 

"SLUT" DEFINED Tuesday, Mar 29 2011

Let’s just put this to rest and show the prochoicers what the word ‘SLUT’ means, shall we?  As defined by Webster:

As I’ve said more time than I can remember, a slut is someone who sleeps with MULTIPLE partners.  And you know what?  It doesn’t have to be a woman.  If this hurts your feelings, you may need to re-assess your lifestyle.

Leave a Response »

 

About Being a Sex Positive Feminist, and Prolife Monday, Mar 28 2011

I spent a long time today discussing the aspects of being a Sex Positive Feminist AND Prolife.  I want to quickly give my point of view on this.

Sex positive proponents can do little for the prolife cause, in my opinion.  Advocating a sex-positive lifestyle, will result in more women being sex positive, and by default, will result in more abortions.  Simple enough?

4 Responses »

 

The True Face of #Prochoice Saturday, Mar 12 2011

I happened to read a post today that just totally blew my mind! It was based on this tweet by @PersonhoodFL.

In response, was a series of “hate-mongering” tweets by @FeministRescue.

Slut-shaming cancer patients? You can call it what you want. I call it honesty. It’s more like trying to prevent you from becoming a cancer patient. 

The National Cancer Institute states:

Persistent HPV infections are now recognized as the cause of essentially all cervical cancers. It was estimated that, in 2010, about 12,000 women in the United States would be diagnosed with this type of cancer and more than 4,000 would die from it.

The CDC states:

Genital human papillomavirus (also called HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI).

According to EMedTV:

About 30 types of HPV are spread through sexual contact, making it one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Yes, @PersonhoodFL is prolife. Prolife for the unborn, without question, but also for women like you, who are in extreme danger of contracting HPV (if you haven’t already), and developing cervical cancer as a result.

“@PersonhoodFL believes women dying from cervical cancer is a consequence of sex.” Let me repeat, per NCI –

Persistent HPV infections are now recognized as the cause of essentially all cervical cancers

“Misogynistic hatred of cancer patients”?  How twisted in thinking does one have to be to make up a line like that? Want to see some real hate? @FeministRescue is now tweeting as @STFUFauxminists. Nice name huh? Kind of reeks of hate doesn’t it?  The post I read was at the tumlr account of STFUFauxminists. And it looks like this:

So loving and peaceful… oh, and tolerant… not

Back to HPV…

Sex can spread HPV. HPV is a leading cause of cervical cancer. Is that simple enough for you?

Again, from CDC:

People can also lower their chances of getting HPV by being in a faithful relationship with one partner; limiting their number of sex partners; and choosing a partner who has had no or few prior sex partners. But even people with only one lifetime sex partner can get HPV. And it may not be possible to determine if a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected. That’s why the only sure way to prevent HPV is to avoid all sexual activity. (emphasis is mine)

The answer is simple. Close your legs and stop the spread of this disease.

As for the title I chose for this post… I realize that not everyone in the prochoice community is as hateful as the one noted above, but a vast majority of them condone this type of attitude.  And you have to ask why conservatives are intolerant?  You should be too.

16 Responses »

 

Defunding Planned Parenthood Friday, Feb 25 2011

For those of you that heard Sally Ann Roberts interview this morning with Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, please understand something.  The Pence amendment is in no way intended to deny poor women access to basic healthcare.   

51% of Planned Parenthood clients in the Gulf Coast region, are on Medicaid.  There are lots of doctors that accept Medicaid.  Planned Parenthood is about ABORTION. 

I’ve heard the rhetoric, and the emotional pleas.   Don’t fall for it!  You heard from Cecile Richards that ‘not one dollar of federal funds is used for abortions’.  That is a lie.  Anyone that knows anything about accounting, knows it’s a line on the ledger, an accounting gimmick.  We pay for the buildings where abortions are performed.  We pay the salaries of clinic workers.  We pay the electric bill.  

It’s time to defund Planned Parenthood.

Leave a Response »

 

Abortion at 8 weeks Saturday, Feb 5 2011

Yeah, I guess it is ‘just tissue’.. Oh wait! Is that an arm and a shoulder?

Photo from http://pregnantpause.org

5 Responses »

 

Sorry, Healthcare is Not a Right! Saturday, Jan 1 2011

We’ve heard it over and over…

From twitter friend @JeninCanada:

“Heathcare IS a right, according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights: Article 25. “

Article 25.

· (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

· (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Jen is absolutely right. Everyone should have the right to food, clothing, housing and medical care…. Nowhere in the UN article does it say FREE.

We all have the right to food. Some people eat ground meat, other more well to do people eat filet’ mignon. It’s all in what you can afford.

We all have the right to clothing. Some people shop at high-end specialty shops for clothes; while others shop at Wal-Mart, still others shop at Dollar General, still others shop at Goodwill. And there are charities that will gladly supply FREE clothing to those in need. It’s all in what you can afford.

We all have the right to housing. Some people can afford a house. Others choose to live in an apartment, and others can afford to live in a public housing unit. And granted, some people live in a cardboard box, or their car if they own one. It’s all in what you can afford.

We all have the right to medical care. Some people can afford high-end insurance policies. Some have run of the mill insurance policies. Some people have Medicaid. It’s all in what you can afford.

We all have the right to own a car. That doesn’t mean everyone has a car. It’s all in what you can afford.

We all have the right to fly in an airplane, or ride on a train or a bus. That doesn’t mean everyone should be given free tickets. It’s all in what you can afford.

Listen to how Walter E Williams explains What Is A Right?

A comment from madass888 on that YouTube video says it best. “A right is something no one can take away from you, not something others are forced to give you.”

6 Responses »