by LauraLoo
Andrew Klavan is an acclaimed writer who has had 2 novels made into major motion pictures. Andrew Klavan is also a conservative, pro-life Christian who has keen insights on abortion…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AGaufgGzC8[/youtube]
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
[HT: Carder]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Awesome!!! Loved it!
Love it! His one one liberal fantasies versus reality was excellent too! Thanks for introducing me to him, Jill! God bless!
This video should be part of comprehensive sex education in all states. (That’s what the anti-lifers promote, right?)
It’s interesting that illegitimate births have skyrocketed since the (liberating?) sex revolution of the 1970’s, and continue on that upward trend even as condoms are more available now than ever. Maybe more contraception encourages more sex??? (How many guys and gals have postponed sex because they forgot to bring a condom? Many, I would guess.)
Klavan’s one sharp Hollywood cookie.
He understands (as does Breitbart) that the culture is where it’s at.
Politicians can pass as many laws as they want, but it’s the everyday contact that’s going to make a fantastic dent.
His video is just part of that slam.
While I’m not exactly familiar with his work, I can understand why he is an ‘acclaimed writer’. He demonstrates extraordinary creativity and imagination. Establish a plot via false premises and outright non-factual situations, create fictional characters and then go on a journey of non-realistic acts. What a mind! What outstanding fiction!
Boring and unfunny by any stretch of the imagination.
Yawwnnn
Reality, you’re unreal!
I love the blunt approach of Klavan and Coulter. It’ a matter of life and death. And if you can’t see it, you’re in denial.
No Hans, it is Klavan who is ‘unreal’. His prose was not factual and it misrepresented the reality of various factors.
“They [dead babies r us mob] call abortion a ‘woman’s right to choose’ because while a person is inside a woman’s body, he has no rights of his own,…(as I can personally atest.)”
=====================================================================
I did laugh at this.
On the whole the monologue is not quite ‘edgy’ enough.
Maybe a bit too obtuse.
Some liberal humanists might mistakenly assume he is agreeing with them.
I don’t see how anyone could find it ‘obtuse’. A string of lies perhaps, but not obtuse. He was just too blatantly wrong for anyone to think he was agreeing with liberal humanists.
Well, spell out these lies. I don’t see them. Kind of like you wouldn’t acknowledge a baby’s existence unless someone stuck one under your nose.
Everyone, Mike is antilife. Don’t feed the animals.
His prose was not factual and it misrepresented the reality of various factors.
How so? Please be specific.
Satire:
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
*****
Must I point out the obvious?
He introduces his talk as being about the funding of PP and the genre of abortion.
He begins by stating that he supports a woman’s right to kill her children at any time and without warning. He then gives reasons for this: noisy, messy, hogging the PS, making mommy to tired to get ‘us’ a beer and an excuse not to have sex. These may be good ‘reasons’ for infanticide (I don’t agree with infanticide and there would be very few pro-choicers who do), but since when did a fetus get too noisy or hog the PS? He claimed to be talking about abortion but then everything is about infanticide. If he wants to talk about abortion, why did he not speak about the reasons for it?
He then waffles some facetious descriptor about how physically difficult it is to read something in the constitution. It’s either written there or it isn’t.
“give up the right to debate the issue” – and we are doing what exactly on this site, other sites and in various media and the public domain?
Aw, he doesn’t like the way people have voted. Just because he doesn’t like the outcome of various votes doesn’t make them undemocratic.
Next, a bit of belittling – “we meant to use protection but were stoned out of our gourds” – what about when protection does happen to fail? Rape? Incest? Does he not realise that anti-choicers get pregnant unintentionally too? Even the evangelical ones? Were they all stoned out of their gourds too? Is that what he’s saying?
Then we get the prose in front of the graphs – “since the 70’s abortion and the number of illegitimate children have skyrocketed’. Well, it would appear that the number of abortions may have ‘skyrocketed’ in the 70’s, but that would be legal abortions. We don’t know how many illegal abortions took place before then. So it’s an apples and oranges thing. And since the 70’s the abortion numbers have actually tailed off according to his graph. Was that skyrocket a dud?
He provides no causal link between the number of abortions and the number of illegitimate children yet attempts to link them. The increase in ‘illegitimate’ births is due to societal and cultural changes which have largely deemed marriage as not being a necessity for procreation.
He wraps up by giving us his own political/social view of the way things are – no proof, evidence or data to support his claims of course – oh, and the ‘big brother’ line naturally.
Like I said, creative and imaginative, not accurate. Pure propaganda, based on lies and distortions.
Reality says: May 26, 2011 at 10:24 pm
“I don’t see how anyone could find it ‘obtuse’.”
==================================================
Of course you don’t.
I believe you are confirming my point.
“He wraps up by giving us his own political/social view of the way things are – no proof, evidence or data to support his claims of course – oh, and the ‘big brother’ line naturally.”
Facts, reason, logic, truth are all wasted on you, because you only agree with that to which you are emotionally attached.
carder says: May 26, 2011 at 11:08 pm
“Satire:
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
*****
Must I point out the obvious?”
===================================================================
Carder,
Alas, Yes.
There are some among us who are ’challenged’ in certain areas and even if you break it down in small enough bites for them to understand, they will still reject it because they don’t like the truth when it conflicts with their preferred outocome.
You cannot have a reasonable conversation with a lunatic.
No chuckles out of you tonight, Reality.
Actually you are right. He was being quite obtuse:
ob·tuse (b-ts, -tys, b-)adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est 1.
a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
c. Not distinctly felt:
Satire requires a realistic link between what is being said and what the target of the satire is. His prose distinctly lacked this.
“You cannot have a reasonable conversation with a lunatic” – and in my opinion, your verbal sprays, incoherent layouts and repeated demeaning distortions of peoples monickers are a consistently reliable example of this. But that’s just my opinion :-)
He spoke of abortion yet showed pictures of infants doing stuff carder. His whole piece was exagerrated and misrepresentative beyond any possible pretence of satire or other forms of humor. It was just ridiculous to the point of being pointless.
Reality quoted: “You cannot have a reasonable conversation with a lunatic”
That’s precisely why I haven’t been speaking with Reality.
He spoke of abortion yet showed pictures of infants doing stuff carder. His whole piece was exagerrated and misrepresentative beyond any possible pretence of satire or other forms of humor. It was just ridiculous to the point of being pointless.
Agreed, Reality. It wasn’t sarcasm, but rather just silly pretenses, mostly.
yes, b/c there’s no way those fetuses would be doing any of those things if they were allowed to live…and THE ONLY reason a woman aborts is because she just doesn’t fancy being pregnant, and has nothing to do with the developing child within her. Riiiiight. 9_9
““give up the right to debate the issue” – and we are doing what exactly on this site, other sites and in various media and the public domain?Aw, he doesn’t like the way people have voted. Just because he doesn’t like the outcome of various votes doesn’t make them undemocratic.”
I think he is referring to Roe v Wade. In other words, abortion did not become legal in all 50 states because the citizens of those states voted and made it so. Abortion became legal in all 50 states because 7 men, the Supreme Court justices, forced RoevWade down everyone’s throats. So ya, there is that feeling that people didn’t get a say, didn’t get a vote, and didn’t get to debate.
“”Next, a bit of belittling – “we meant to use protection but were stoned out of our gourds” – what about when protection does happen to fail? Rape? Incest? Does he not realise that anti-choicers get pregnant unintentionally too? Even the evangelical ones? Were they all stoned out of their gourds too? Is that what he’s saying?”
I see what u r getting at, but on the other hand I would point u to the “I’m not sorry” blog. It actually made me MORE pro-life than before. lol. If u read many of the stories on there it IS women talking about “oh well I’ve never been good at remembering to take my pills” or some such nonsense. So yes, those cases cause a special anger in pro-lifers because we see that the very people who are demanding the right to kill their babies did next to nothing (or just plain nothing) to avoid getting pregnant. It is madning.
Michelle wrote:
Don’t feed the animals.
Trolls. Don’t feed the trolls. :) Terminology, you know… and many animals are quite nice!
I really *do* need to finish that Troll Taxonomy book I’ve been meaning to write… maybe they *are* some variety of animal, albeit a rather distasteful subset of animal…
(By the way… hi, Michelle! :) )
Are you actually trying to say anything there xalisae?
It was a court which handed the presidency to bush too Kris.
“forced RoevWade down everyone’s throats” – everyone’s?
And it’s sites like this which make me a more avid and focussed supporter of womens’ right to choose.
I’m sure that would be a most entertaining tome Paladin. What genre do you think it would be classified as?
Uh, no. The Supreme Court slapped down the Florida court for trying to support a Democratic Legislature that was attempting to rewrite rules post-election. A three-year old could understand the unfairness in that attempted coup of the vote.
You sore losers way outnumber the truthers and birthers.
Well there you go Hans. A stacked supreme court over-riding truth with it’s biased political stance to achieve a desired outcome. Tut tut.
That’s an apt description of the Florida supreme court. The Federal Supreme Court said: “No, you have to follow the rules as spelled out in the existing law.” What a concept.
Are you actually trying to say anything there xalisae?
Yes. That you’re full of it. That the primary reason women abort is because they don’t want to deal with the child, and that it has very little to do with the pregnancy itself.