This is posted on an Obama campaign website:
“Vote like your lady parts depend on it,” the text in the image says. Underneath, the text reads: “Because they kinda do.”
UPDATE: The image has been removed from the Obama website.
~ The Weekly Standard, October 2
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.
Disgusting, sounds very Cosmopolitan. LL
well, as disgusting as I think this is, I see some truth to it. If BO wins, then my body parts will very much be in jeopardy-with things like forced abortions and sterilizations that are already in place in the obamacare health package. So I have to vote like my body parts depend on it, ALL of my body parts depend on it as well, not just my female ones. (death panels are real–just look at the Netherlands)
More proof that Obama has no respect for women. We are not all as dumb as he thinks we are. Time to show him in Nov. ladies! http://voiceforhope.blogspot.com/
Was it someone on this site who noted that it’s always liberals and 5-year-olds that are excessively interested in their private parts? haha.
Gonads for brains will do it every time !!!
So, I take it Obama hired someone from Jezebel to run his website?
Our lady parts depend on abortion.
What about eliminating problem pregnancies in the first place? That beats tiny arms and legs torn to pieces every time.
Denise, listen up: the solution is to divorce the word “problem” from “pregnancy.”
Courtnay says:
October 6, 2012 at 10:59 am
Denise, listen up: the solution is to divorce the word “problem” from “pregnancy.”
(Denise) The “problem” is that women get pregnant who don’t want to carry to term and give birth. If only women who yearned for babies got pregnant, pregnancy would cease to have “problem” affixed before it.
DeniseNoe: “Problem” is a nebulous term. I understand what you are trying to say; I have gotten pregnant a few times, with my abusive (ex)husband, when I felt I really did not have time or energy for another and was afraid for my health. Nonetheless, I chose to love my child. I believe that choosing to love an “inconvenient” human being – even if you are scared and/or financially destitute – is a fact of humanity. This is the true “choice”. Modern feminists are generally unappealing, because most people recognize their priority of selfishness. I have learned the hard way the difference between proper self-respect and just being selfish. Calling your child, instead of the situation, “problem”, is self-serving. It is hard to understand someone who truly cannot handle another child, and so aborts, as “selfish”. The pro-choice movement would call her “brave” for not bringing another “problem” into the world, right? But you see, that child was never a “problem”. The unborn, like many other minorities before them, were only viewed by OTHERS as a “problem”. There will never be a world without unexpected pregnancies, as you are well aware. So let me reiterate: the “choice” is not to destroy our children by labeling them as “problem”. The “choice” is to, if possible, avoid becoming pregnant when not ready, and then to put the child first once he’she is conceived.
We were talking about this on The Right Fangirl on LJ and the consensus was, we do not think with our vaginas. But if we did, we’d still vote for the Romney ticket because that’s the one with Paul Ryan on it. *fans self*
I recognize that many women enjoy intercourse. I recognize that, for some women, it is the preferred sexual activity. However, the fact is that this form of sex is far more efficient and effective at pleasuring men than pleasuring women.
Thus, it seems to me that if women were truly emancipated, many more would abstain from intercourse than currently do so.
luckymama says:
October 6, 2012 at 1:51 pm
DeniseNoe: “Problem” is a nebulous term. I understand what you are trying to say; I have gotten pregnant a few times, with my abusive (ex)husband, when I felt I really did not have time or energy for another and was afraid for my health. Nonetheless, I chose to love my child. I believe that choosing to love an “inconvenient” human being – even if you are scared and/or financially destitute – is a fact of humanity. This is the true “choice”. Modern feminists are generally unappealing, because most people recognize their priority of selfishness. I have learned the hard way the difference between proper self-respect and just being selfish. Calling your child, instead of the situation, “problem”, is self-serving. It is hard to understand someone who truly cannot handle another child, and so aborts, as “selfish”. The pro-choice movement would call her “brave” for not bringing another “problem” into the world, right? But you see, that child was never a “problem”. The unborn, like many other minorities before them, were only viewed by OTHERS as a “problem”. >>
(Denise) Problem in this case refers to the unwillingness of a pregnant female to carry to term and give birth. It doesn’t refer to the embryo or fetus as much as it refers to the unwillingness or inability of the pregnant female to complete the pregnancy. My friend Eleanor Cooney has said she would have aborted no matter what because “no way in hell” was she going to “complete the pregnancy.”
Thus, the only way to have prevented that abortion was to have prevented that pregnancy because the pregnancy wasn’t going to be carried to term.
<<There will never be a world without unexpected pregnancies, as you are well aware. >>
(Denise) I disagree. I believe that unexpected pregnancies will someday be a thing of the past and that abortion will pretty much disappear when they do.
<<So let me reiterate: the “choice” is not to destroy our children by labeling them as “problem”. The “choice” is to, if possible, avoid becoming pregnant when not ready, and then to put the child first once he’she is conceived. >>
(Denise) I didn’t label the embryo or fetus as the problem but the unwillingness or inability of some pregnant women to carry. Eleanor Cooney has said it was “PREGNANCY ITSELF” that she rejected. She just did not accept the condition of pregnancy and what it requires so she (inevitably) aborted.
I believe the day will come in which all pregnancies are wanted by the female who becomes pregnant.
Check out Kristin Walker’s response if you want to laugh, then cry (then laugh … then cry again?) :
“Mitt Romney, if elected, will immediately send troops into your home to aim giant guns at your uterus. Your reproductive organs will no longer be under your control, but will belong to the United States and the Republican Party, to be done with as they please. (This will probably involve forcing you to give birth to Evangelical babies who love guns and country music.) While your uterus is placed under armed guard, your birth control pills, IUDs, condoms, and all other lady-plumbing related accessories will be confiscated by bureaucrats (white Christian male bureaucrats) and replaced with Bibles and Kirk Cameron DVDs.”
http://liveactionnews.org/politics/your-daily-outrage-war-on-women-edition-plus-yet-another-reason-to-avoid-france/
Vote with my “lady parts”, eh? Gee..well..ok…but I don’t think i can get the stool that high!
Newsflash Mr. Obama: If my lady parts COULD vote…they STILL wouldn’t vote for YOU.
I’m being facetious, because this is all just so ridiculous! ;)
I wonder what the reaction would be like if am presidential candidate’s website instructed men to vote like their man parts depended on it? I’m sure that would reveal our society’s double standards pretty fast.
Actually, if Anthony Weiner ever were to run for President, that might work.
Oh, and because no one has said it yet: Stay classy, Obama campaign.
Vote like over a million babies’ parts depend on it.
Because, well, they do.
Luckily my “lady parts” don’t depend on drugs and devices. Besides, the phrase “lady parts” astounds me with regard to voting. My BRAIN, vagina, uterus, cervix?
I know a man who votes with his “gentleman parts.” He is strongly attracted to assertive women and likes to fantasize acting as a servant to high-profile females. He would vote for Hillary Clinton or Phyllis Schlafly, Bay Buchanan or Judge Judy, just because he would enjoy cleaning, cooking, and doing errands for any of these women.
Denise, you sure know some interesting people.
Do you think any guy will vote for Obama as though his man parts depend on it? Besides one possible approximation, Chrissie Matthews……
If Obama wins, birth control will remain mandatory for health institutions to issue.
There’s a story going around saying Birth Control Pills Lower Abortions by 75 percent. This we know is a lie because the truth is that birth control pills can, and morning after pills do, act as abortifacients, preventing the newly conceived embryo from implanting in its’ mother’s uterus.
So, really, Chemical abortions can go very high if Obama wins and peddles this Free Pill nonsense.
By the way, who pays for it?
Alyssa Cumella says:
October 8, 2012 at 10:16 am
If Obama wins, birth control will remain mandatory for health institutions to issue. There’s a story going around saying Birth Control Pills Lower Abortions by 75 percent. This we know is a lie because the truth is that birth control pills can, and morning after pills do, act as abortifacients, preventing the newly conceived embryo from implanting in its’ mother’s uterus.
(Denise) Which is preferable, a 1-celled zygote falling off the wall of a uterus or a fully formed fetus with a head and torso, arms and legs, a brain and heartbeat, torn to bits?
I don’t know about you but I’ll take the former over the latter any day of the week.
I also say the pill is preferable to actual abortions, since the jury is still out on whether or not the pill actually even DOES prevent implantation (I don’t think it does from the evidence I’ve read and personal experience). So, yeah. Contraception > abortion, but I still don’t think all insurance companies/policies should be FORCED to cover it.
“Which is preferable, a 1-celled zygote falling off the wall of a uterus or a fully formed fetus with a head and torso, arms and legs, a brain and heartbeat, torn to bits?”
Another false dichotomy. We don’t have to choose to keep abortifacient drugs OR surgical abortion. Let’s protect life and get rid of them both.
(Please note, I am referring to abortifacient drugs not contraception.)