Texas abortion supporter wishes her uterus was a gun
The Washington Examiner has posted “20 bizarre pro-choice signs protesting the Texas abortion bill.”
I already posted one of them, but here’s another that caught my eye, bringing new meaning to the term, “concealed carry”:
The woman was obviously wishing she could quife a round at pro-life legislators. Perhaps she was responding to Texas Congressman Steve Stockman’s tweet…
Babies shooting their mothers from the uterus, pro-abortion women shooting politicians with their uterus… it’s the feminist era of the Wild West.
It’s all a bit zany, but the reality isn’t. The umbrella sign above was unwittingly ironic. The uterus, of course, is already used as a lethal weapon 1.2 million times a year in the U.S. So speaking of guns, and via Abort73.com…
What is it with Americans and guns? A friend of mine, one of the greatest minds in New Zealand on the abortion debate, did a tour in the USA last year speaking at various events and I remember him posting up something on Facebook about how only in America would you find a convenience store advertising flier promoting specials on automatic assault rifles. I find it bizarre. But at least people in your nation are passionate about protecting the unborn, the most vulnerable and most discriminated against group of human beings.
9 likes
It might have something to do with this……..
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms.
12 likes
The uterus is a lethal weapon? Why the need for those pesky drugs and medical personnel then. Can’t a woman just say “uterus, do your thing” if she wants to terminate a pregnancy?
Or is that why the patriarchy want to control womens reproductive rights, because they need to be in charge of the weaponry? That’d be the more likely scenario.
5 likes
I can worship whomever I want at whatever church I want, drink whatever brand of beer I want, and then I can (as long as I follow all laws and rules and don’t use a residential neighborhood as a range!) shoot the empty can, if I want.
In short, God Bless America!
8 likes
Using the uterus as an excuse to kill is what the lethal weapon is. It’s become a killing ground when it should be the safest place in the world for a very young child.
18 likes
Shooting cans can indeed be fun! I did a bit of it when I was young.
Cherish freedom!
4 likes
“Using the uterus as an excuse to kill” – how does that work?
3 likes
I love the one of a MAN holding a sign saying “hey women haters, women are not incubators” yet we ARE!!!! Stupid man. They say WE don’t understand science? Hey guess what men? A woman’s body is designed to INCUBATE her young child and it is a precious, amazing experience! Stop trying to kill our babies so you can keep having sex with us and not have to man up. Stop acting like the design of the female body is SOLELY to be your sexual plaything and not to incubate and nurse our young. I am a WIFE AND a MOTHER. I was designed to be a lover AND an incubator and I don’t hate myself for it.
16 likes
Reality says:
July 8, 2013 at 8:50 pm
“Using the uterus as an excuse to kill” – how does that work?
Well, it starts with a pregnant woman asserting something like “My body, My choice!”
Then she pays an abortionist to kill her child, because our society allows it.
9 likes
He obviously left out the word ‘mandatory’. And didn’t have enough space to add how that’s all some people think women are.
Sounds like you’ve only met the not very nice men who are around, that’s a shame.
What about the man seen holding an ‘I regret my abortion’ sign. Does he understand science?
3 likes
Nup, still doesn’t add up Del.
“Using the uterus as an excuse to kill” just doesn’t make sense. Unless non-pregnant women also use their uterus as an excuse to kill. There must be more to it.
3 likes
“Unless non-pregnant women also use their uterus as an excuse to kill.”
Lol you’ve never seen the court cases where young ladies attempted to use PMS or PMDD as excuses for committing assault and murder?
^I’m obviously joking around. Seriously, I think people are using the phrase meaning aborting women use the rationalization of “it’s my uterus, so I can ‘evict’ anything or anyone who is in there”. I don’t really agree with the phrasing but it works.
9 likes
“young ladies attempted to use PMS or PMDD as excuses for committing assault and murder?” – not sure that that’s as much of a joke as you think Jack :-) Although I do support the reduction in charges against women who kill after years of being brutalized one way or another. PMS etc. isn’t ‘the uterus’ though.
I don’t think it works. ‘using the uterus as an excuse to kill’ kinda misses a whole lot of what is actually going on.
2 likes
“The uterus is a lethal weapon? Why the need for those pesky drugs and medical personnel then. Can’t a woman just say “uterus, do your thing” if she wants to terminate a pregnancy?”
News Flash: All pregnancies are terminated. It is only a matter of how. Childbirth terminates a pregnancy. Miscarriage terminates a pregnancy. These are two instances of the uterus doing its thing naturally. No woman is pregnant forever.
10 likes
And that affects what I said how?
3 likes
Most post abortive men hold signs that say I Regret Lost Fatherhood.
9 likes
Nothing new here – they’ve just been listening to John Lennon, is all (maybe doing drugs?)
Happiness is a warm gun yeah….bang bang, shoot, shoot.
In the video, Lennon even throws gang signs!
3 likes
“Using the uterus as an excuse to kill” – how does that work?
Bc when you have one, in this society, you have an excuse to kill any child in it. At will. Because you want to.
We’re supposed to “trust women” (to decide when to kill their children who have not morphed into “persons” through whatever magical criteria the defender is using). So being a woman (with a uterus) gives you an excuse to kill.
10 likes
Who is this amorphous patriarchy? It is just a convenient card for abortion supporters to play when they want to take the victim stance. It is about as real as the boogeyman.
What I see is
1) that early feminists were opposed to abortion
2) at least half of the pro-life movement is female
3) there are female leaders of pro-life organizations
4) there are pro-life female members of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government at the local, state, and federal levels
5) that pro-life men care about human rights including those of pre-born children and their mothers
6 likes
“Bc when you have one, in this society, you have an excuse to kill any child” – couldn’t the same be said for vaginas? Ovaries? Other female reproductive parts?
I hadn’t given consideration to just how dangerous womens’ bodies are. No wonder there’s such a battle to control them!
“Who is this amorphous patriarchy?” – aye, there’s the rub.
0 likes
“couldn’t the same be said for vaginas? Ovaries? Other female reproductive parts?”
No since you have to have the baby in your uterus to gain the right to kill it. And women who have mutilated their other organs in an attempt to look like men, still have this magical excuse, so long as they have a uterus and a baby in it. So it’s the uterus that renders women trustworthy in the matter of killing. It’s the pro-abortion rule…..don’t know why you find it confusing.
“I hadn’t given consideration to just how dangerous womens’ bodies are. No wonder there’s such a battle to control them!”
Clearly, there’s a lot you haven’t considered.
6 likes
You need ovaries to be able to get pregnant first. And a vagina too. So that makes them part of the arsenal.
“And women who have mutilated their other organs in an attempt to look like men,” – you what?
“don’t know why you find it confusing.” – not at all. But I do find it confused.
“Clearly, there’s a lot you haven’t considered.” – as you so amply demonstrate ;-)
0 likes
“You need ovaries to be able to get pregnant first. And a vagina too. So that makes them part of the arsenal.”
Well, you can get pregnant with no ovaries as long as you have a uterus. Infertility stuff can help you out with that. And technically, you only need the vagina to give birth, not to get pregnant.
““And women who have mutilated their other organs in an attempt to look like men,” – you what?”
I think she’s talking about the transgender man.
7 likes
“you only need the vagina to give birth” – you haven’t been paying attention have you Jack ;-)
Maybe once men have the ability to develop their own uteruses the whole reproductive freedom debate will end.
0 likes
” Maybe once men have the ability to develop their own uteruses the whole reproductive freedom debate will end.”
It won’t. As evidenced by the millions of pro-life women, it’s not a gender thing (that’s just an unfortunate side effect of biology that women are the ones more affected by pro-life restrictions, it sucks, but it is was it is). The “reproductive freedom” debate won’t end until unborn humans are given legal protection. Even if they’re growing in some male Frankenstein uterus or something.
7 likes
I think that once men can get pregnant the anti-choice side will lose a whole lot of support, resources and impetus.
It goes with the whole ‘if men menstruated, sanitary products would be free’ paradigm.
0 likes
“I think that once men can get pregnant the anti-choice side will lose a whole lot of support, resources and impetus.”
You’re entitled to think that, but you’re simply wrong.
” It goes with the whole ‘if men menstruated, sanitary products would be free’ paradigm.”
This isn’t true either. Look at the funding and social attention and care given to the issue in regards to breast cancer versus prostate cancer (or, really, any health issue that affects men disproportionately or exclusively). Look at how no one seems to really care that males commit suicide at ridiculously high rates compared to females. Look how only conservative anti-feminist groups (meaning, they don’t really seem to care about the boys so much as want to bash on feminism) seem to worry about how far boys are falling behind in regards to education. Look at how males shame each other (and women do it to) for being domestically abused or sexually abused, etc etc etc. This is one thing that I can’t stand about certain aspects of mainstream feminism. Blanket statements that have no basis in fact besides subjective speculation determined to deny that maybe “men” as a monolithic group don’t have all the power (seems much more based on class to me than gender).
9 likes
”but you’re simply wrong.’ – you’re entitled to think that but I think you’re wrong.
Your second response, very erudite I must say – kudos, I find myself nodding in at least partial agreement with.
Could the difference be that at the origins of mankind women kept the home fires burning and nurtured the young while men went off and rode dinosaurs or something? Therefore men were ‘hardy’ and scoffed at injuries etc.
All the topics you mention are, finally, starting to emerge into the light of day. Men’s physical and mental issue are starting to be taken more seriously and resourced.
0 likes
I don’t know what “erudite” means lol, but thanks I think?
” Could the difference be that at the origins of mankind women kept the home fires burning and nurtured the young while men went off and rode dinosaurs or something? Therefore men were ‘hardy’ and scoffed at injuries etc.”
Yup, something like that lol. That’s why I roll my eyes when people scream misogyny for literally everything. It’s not always about “misogyny” (which literally means hatred of women, and is misapplied in nearly everything I’ve seen it used in). Gender roles came about when we didn’t have the technology and way of life we did today, imho. Women are (generally) physically smaller and needed protection and were the ones who carried babies, so were delegated the role of “nurturer”. Possibly there were other biological reasons for that, but I’m pretty sure the reason wasn’t that everyone hated women and wanted them shut in the home. Men were expected to provide and protect because we’re generally larger and stronger, and more disposable biologically. So it worked for the species to have fairly rigid gender roles. You can’t have tons of women marching off to battle and dying like men did, the species can’t survive with less women especially with maternal mortality so high for most of history (but more men can die off and the species can still survive, men are less biologically necessary).
Of course nowadays with technology, better medical knowledge, etc these roles are hurting more than helping, but I think it’s ridiculous when people act like all of human history was the meanie patriarchy keeping strong womyn down rather than just a pragmatic way of keeping the species alive.
Of course this is a very truncated version of the way I see things. And I don’t deny sexism exists, just unlike a lot of feminists I think it goes both ways and it’s not so cut and dried like “patriarchy: by men for men”.
7 likes
“You need ovaries to be able to get pregnant first. And a vagina too. So that makes them part of the arsenal.”
Ah, there’s that pro-abort science.
“And women who have mutilated their other organs in an attempt to look like men,” – you what?
You know women who have “changed their sex”. The ones who generate the “first pregnant ‘man‘” headlines (eye roll). Those women only need their uterus.
3 likes