Jivin J’s Life Links 4-22-10
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
The whole feminist philosophy is disgusting. They tell women to sleep around like men do. When women then get unintentionally pregnant (usually while unmarried), they tell the women to just kill the damn burden growing inside of you and throw it out like refuse….
And NO, don’t you dare do any research about abortion, what your baby looks like, or the effect having an abortion can have on you. Just kill the damn thing and get back to your Womyn’s Studies classes because college is the MOST. IMPORTANT. THING. EVER!
And no, you cannot do both, you must choose between being a pregnant, barefoot housewife in a kitchen or being a smart, single, feminist womyn with a degree in Gender Studies. If you have the baby you are contributing to the patriarchy! And you will be a victim! Do what we say! Don’t think for yourself!
…[T]he clinic’s director, who goes by Ann, calls the whole thing a trap. She says that if someone under-age comes into the clinic, its normal procedure to tell them how to get a judicial bypass.
Live Action says their biggest problem with the incident is when “Brianna” tells Wendy that her boyfriend is a little older. She says that he’s 31.
Live Action says this should have been reported immediately to police because under KY law, it’s sexual abuse for a 14-year-old to have sex with a 31-year-old.
Ann defends her employee and the clinic, however, saying it wasn’t a true counseling session. Brianna was talking to a receptionist, and not a trained counselor.
View the video below:
Emergency contraceptive pills are now available in many countries, but have failed to have the desired impact on unwanted pregnancy rates. Why is this? Earlier barriers to access are becoming less and less prevalent.
What? The reason ECs haven’t shown a reduction in pregnancies and abortion (even in studies where women have been given a pack of them to use whenever they want) is because earlier barriers to access are becoming less prevalent?
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.
“If you have the baby you are contributing to the patriarchy! And you will be a victim! Do what we say! Don’t think for yourself”
——————————————-
Yeah, Cassy…and the sad this is they call it “empowerment”.
“And no, you cannot do both, you must choose between being a pregnant, barefoot housewife in a kitchen or being a smart, single, feminist womyn with a degree in Gender Studies. ”
Is this why they are scared to death of Sarah Palin?
Because she doesn’t conforms to this mold?
These feministas are making the stereotypical dumb blonde look brillant by comparison.
you go girls!
yor bro ken
The RH Reality Check article was poorly written. The question “Why is this?” would make some sense if written at the end of the paragraph instead of the middle.
“One reason for low correct use of ECPs is the very poor basic understanding of fertility, contraception, and pregnancy risk that seems widespread in both developed and developing countries. In France, a survey of women seeking abortion indicated that more than half were unaware of their pregnancy risk at the time that they became pregnant or could not identify specific act that led to the pregnancy; ”
If the pro-aborts weren’t so quick to promote contraception as the solution to unwanted pregnancy, women would learn how to control their fertility by reading their own bodily signals. But that would be a money-losing proposition for the pharmaceutical and abortion industries so it’s not likely to happen. The comment about the French survey is hard to believe. Maybe a French woman could comment.
“Is this why they are scared to death of Sarah Palin?
Because she doesn’t conforms to this mold?”
In a word, yes.
I think there are sane people who disagree with Sarah Palin on some things, but the second/third-wave feminist types who absolutely detest her are mad because she got to where she is without going along with their ideology. It shows you how downhill feminism has gone, because before abortion became the One Issue To Rule Them All, anyone calling herself a feminist would have had no reservations about calling Sarah Palin a major feminist success story.
She worked her way through college. She used to be a sports reporter. She got her start in politics by campaigning for city council, pulling her children behind her on a sled as she went door-to-door. She worked her way up through the ranks, became the first female governor of Alaska, and then became a vice presidential candidate – the second female one in the history of the United States. She did it all while raising five children, and with support from her husband, who never threw some kind of hissy fit over all the attention she got and he didn’t. (It probably doesn’t make the haters feel any better that Todd is a total hunk.) Now she’s one of the most influential political figures in the entire country, despite not even holding office at the moment, and keeps right on challenging the current administration.
But oh, no! She didn’t graduate from a college with a name you can throw around, and she has a noticeable regional accent. (A lot of East Coast feminist academic types are total snobs about accents. I speak from experience.) And she didn’t abort her son with Down Syndrome. And her daughter graduated from high school on time and is now in college despite having a baby as a teenager. How dare she not support her and Bristol’s “right” to have slaughtered their children in the womb?!
Plus, I think it bugs them that she got to where she is without an influential man behind her, and they can’t say that for the leading female Democrats. Hillary’s national prominance came through Bill. Nancy Pelosi had an initial leg up in politics because of her husband’s family’s influence in San Francisco. Sarah Palin’s husband and father have absolutely zero political influence. she did it on her own.
Fascinating blog of a woman who had an abortion.
It is awful naked truth.
It is raw and uncut, personal and honest.
No matter what you think of what she says, it is a very interesting look into her thinking.
She has a husband and a boyfriend and doesn’t know who the father is. She seems to have limited understanding of human psychology. Not surprising these days as those who want to use politics undo what nature has done, have practically debased the field of psychology.
http://ieffedupmylife.blogspot.com/
That’s not a fantastic reply, that’s ridiculous. Feminism is about choice—if you want to sleep around, go for it. If you want to keep the child, go for it. College is important if you want a job. It’s hard choosing between kids and work, but you can do it. Stay at home if you want.
Fiano is an idiot. And I notice none of you have degraded men for sleeping around like you do women.
I like Sarah Paylins values. I think she is an awesome mom and I think she is an absolute role model for women and young women but what I worry about is her stance on environmental issues. So I will do a some research before I comment. Does anyone think it’s possible to have a candidate that is pro-life and pro-environment?
Less: Where in the comments did someone degrade women who sleep around? And, please, I know you’re intelligent enough to be above the “s/he’s an idiot” level. (Same goes for you, kbhvac.) That’s not a counter-argument, that’s an ad hominen attack.
What I think is ridiculous is the attitude that there’s something wrong with telling women about the possible negative aftereffects of abortion. I’ve met LOTS of people who have the mindset Cassy Fiano describes.
Hippie: That blog is one of the most depressing things I’ve ever seen.
Myrtle: What’s your concern exactly about Sarah Palin and environmental issues?
Hippie: That blog is one of the most depressing things I’ve ever seen.
Posted by: Marauder at April 22, 2010 8:02 PM
Yes, but it is real. That is where people end up when they have more license than they know what to do with. The woman is obviously miserable and abortion didn’t really fix anything. She is even more messed up. I think we delude ourselves when we think that by lowering standards things will get better. People with poor executive function need stricter guidelines for living.
Hippie: That blog is one of the most depressing things I’ve ever seen.
Posted by: Marauder at April 22, 2010 8:02 PM
Yes, but it is real. That is where people end up when they have more license than they know what to do with. The woman is obviously miserable and abortion didn’t really fix anything. She is even more messed up. I think we delude ourselves when we think that by lowering standards things will get better. Situations like this have been around since the beginning of time and changing the rules doesn’t help anyone.
Marauder, I’ve met many pro-life people who insist women who seek abortion are sluts, and those who go through it are sociopathic. Is that the extent of the pro-life movement? I sincerely hope not. So why is it okay to lambast feminists as a whole? As your dear friend Rachel said, anecdotal stories–mine or yours– cannot be verified by any objective method.
A lot of the issues that women care about got kicked to the curb by pro aborts who hijacked the national women’s organizations. That is why conservative women’s organizations appear. The Equal Rights Amendment was supported by Nixon and plenty of males were at the forefront (profit center) of legalized abortion, it was Phyllis Schlafly and her group that opposed it. Men support legal abortion more than women do. Think about that.
Hippie, you say “a lot” of issues. What kind of issues? Can you be more specific? Can you point to an issue? Posters on this site routinely say that abortion hurts men and fathers as much as women; how can it do that when they are, as you seem to be implying, profit the most from it?
“Marauder, I’ve met many pro-life people who insist women who seek abortion are sluts, and those who go through it are sociopathic. Is that the extent of the pro-life movement?”
Oh, yeah, that’s why we all hate Carla so much. *eyeroll*
If no one here has said that, why would you assume we think it? Go argue with the people who said it and don’t expect us to defend arguments we don’t believe in.
“So why is it okay to lambast feminists as a whole?”
Once again, why are you asking me? Where did I “lambast feminists as a whole”?
I take issue with a lot of the second-wave and third-wave feminists because they did and do not have my best interests at heart, or the best interests of any woman who doesn’t conform to their philosophy. They turned feminism into a movement that thought that women who don’t work outside the home were “parasites” (Betty Friedan, “The Feminine Mystique”), and a movement that thought that “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” (Simone de Beauvoir) That’s not what you think? Okay, I’m glad to hear it. However, that’s what many of “the leaders of the movement” think, even if a lot of the old guard has died, and the only thing they can make a loud, public, impossible-to-ignore protest over is abortion.
Where’s the loud, public, impossible-to-ignore feminist indignation about how women are treated in Muslim countries? I’m not saying they don’t care, but what’s the one thing they’ll rally all their energy behind year after year after year? Abortion. Why do they spend so much time focusing on “safe sex” and not spend at least equal time focusing on teaching young girls that there is absolutely nothing wrong with NOT having sex? Why do they let most sexist verbal attacks on conservative women pass without comment? Why is abortion the only thing that feminist organizations can be counted on to always fight for? Why do they ignore the pro-life beliefs of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul and insist that being pro-life is inherently anti-feminist?
Trust me, I’ve seen what the self-described modern feminists are like. I’m in my mid-twenties and I graduated from Smith. They are some of the most intolerant people I’ve ever met in my life. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the belief that women should have equal rights along with men, but the public face of the feminist movement is something I want nothing to do with.
I’m a Susan B. Anthony feminist. Gloria Steinem and her ilk do not speak for me (or for most women for that matter, who actually *like* men GASP and children!)
Maurader, perhaps you haven’t been around enough to see some of the more vicious attacks on women who came here who had abortions and didn’t regret it. Another mod, MK, made a whole post about how women who had abortions and didn’t regret it were sociopaths. Have you read some of the things HisMan has said? He once dedicated an entire page of a post (yes, I had to scroll down several times to see any more) about how I was going to hell—because of a tattoo. Elisabeth has said I’m a cold, dead, person. I ask again, is this the extent of the pro-life movement? Insulting those who disagree? Telling them they’ll go to hell? Painting women who’ve aborted without regrets as sociopaths?
The statement made in the links above lambasts feminists as a whole. As to your comments in the next paragraph, anyone who doesn’t work outside the home inherently has to rely upon the income of another, non-working mothers and non-working fathers alike. Parasite’s a harsh word for it, but yeah, they rely on someone else. Friedan died recently, and her book was written in the sixties—quite a while ago, when women were facing completely different problems. I agree with Beauvoir on a lot of points, particularly that society should be totally different. But she lived and died years and years ago, and is no longer as influential as she once was. She’s not one of the “leaders of the movement.” There are no “leaders of the movement.” Unless you can give me something more recent, your comments don’t hold a lot of water.
As to feminist indignation about Islamic countries, there are plenty of women fighting for that. Ever heard of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan? The International Congress on Islamic Feminism? Those are just TWO organizations, of many, not to mention individuals. I’m not sure where you’re getting that this isn’t being fought for.
You can’t be pro-life and feminist without some serious cognitive dissonance. The pro-life stance is that the fetus is more important than the women, every time, and that’s not particularly feminist. Sure, you can hold beliefs that women should be educated equally, should have equal opportunities for work, should be treated the same—but you know, I don’t even see a whole lot of that here.
I’ve seen what modern feminists are like. They aren’t ANYTHING like what you’re conjecturing—because really, you’ve not given me much proof. I’m your age, and graduated from a similar school. Maybe you’re having these experiences because you’re looking for them.
You stated you haven’t aborted. My claims of your being cold and unfeeling and dead of heart aren’t based on that, so using my name in this list is more than disingenuous.
But, you haven’t let the facts stand in your way thus far. Why start now?
It isn’t about whether or not I’ve aborted. It’s about taking what should be a discussion and turning into a personal proving ground of who’s holier. It’s about making passive aggressive, ‘you haven’t let facts stand in your way thus far!’ type comments. Is the pro-life movement inherently passive aggressive? Maybe that’s the case, there was a memo, and I”m missing it.
If you’ve got something to say, say it. Don’t hide because cutesy, BS rhetorical questions. But then again, I’ve also provided citations, or can, to everything I’ve said, excepting the anecdotal evidence. Heck, I can provide links to MK and HisMan’s comments most likely, assuming they’ve not been deleted.
Excuse me, but I have gone to great lengths to cite my sources. Are you attempting to claim that when I make factual statements such as about the number of babies diagnosed with DS who are aborted that I *don’t* cite my sources?
I do not have to cite sources when I am making a personal observation.
You like to link statements together to create an impression that they are on the same topic or about the same issue when they are not. That is what I am calling disingenuous. When you are called on the facts of the discussion, if you are obviously wrong about what you stated (such as the other thread where you claimed that you had made statements about other causes being worthy and gave a list of them that you claimed you had already addressed, then inserted the snide comment insinuating I had either “missed” or “ignored” those statements… but then it was obvious that I had neither missed nor ignored them… you hadn’t made them… all of a sudden you were off on another tack… because you couldn’t support your blatant lack of truthfulness in claiming to have made posts that you did not … which is not only untruthful, but really just not smart as we can go back and read what has been posted)then you simply shift the subject and make more baseless assertions.
I’m not implying YOU don’t cite your sources. But many here don’t. Hippie claims s/he doesn’t need to, that it’s actually not necessary when making a claim.
They are about the same issue–the attitude of the pro-lifers on this site. All of them are on that topic. Or do you disagree about that as well?
I had made a statement about what other activities I involved myself in. I said I donated and worked with domestic violence charities. How is that not clarifying what other charities I was involved in, and thus thought worthy? Or was that not explicit enough for you?
The statement about you missing or ignoring something was intended to be taken at face value. The conversation derailed from there, thankfully, because that’s an argument neither of us are winning. I think pro-choice charities and donations are the single best use of my time. You disagree. Neither of us are changing, and there’s no point in continuing.
“You can’t be pro-life and feminist without some serious cognitive dissonance. ”
Less,
I have to disagree. You might want to take a look at this web site.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/
Janet, I’ve been to the site, and understand the viewpoint. I disagree, and believe that it’s representative of cognitive dissonance.
There are points they make that, I think, are universally positive. Should a woman be forced to chose between career and kids? No. But until we have some of the social services that, for example, places in Europe have, that’s going to happen. State-sponsored day care? Great idea, that would be fantastic. More support for stay at home dads? Great idea, that would also be fantastic.
But you cannot inherently believe that a woman shouldn’t have control over her own body and be a feminist. It just doesn’t work.
Less,
So your idea as a feminist is that a woman should be taken care of by the State (Federal Government)? Daycare is already available. Making it state-sponsored means we pay for it in higher taxes instead of directly to a day-care center. No savings there…
I don’t remember reading anything about tattoos or sociopaths, so I can’t speak for that.
“Friedan died recently, and her book was written in the sixties—quite a while ago, when women were facing completely different problems. I agree with Beauvoir on a lot of points, particularly that society should be totally different. But she lived and died years and years ago, and is no longer as influential as she once was. She’s not one of the “leaders of the movement.” There are no “leaders of the movement.” Unless you can give me something more recent, your comments don’t hold a lot of water.”
Um, yeah, I know that they’re dead – see “even if a lot of the old guard has died”.
Of course there are leaders of the movement, or at least women who purport to be leaders of the movement. You’re going to tell me that the president of NOW isn’t considered a leader of the feminist movement?
“As to feminist indignation about Islamic countries, there are plenty of women fighting for that. Ever heard of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan? The International Congress on Islamic Feminism? Those are just TWO organizations, of many, not to mention individuals. I’m not sure where you’re getting that this isn’t being fought for.”
Okay. You and I are going to have a lot fewer unnecessary misunderstandings if you take every word I say for exactly what it means, no more and no less. I said “Where’s the loud, public, impossible-to-ignore feminist indignation about how women are treated in Muslim countries?” not “why aren’t they doing anything for women in Muslim countries”. Of course there are people doing things for women in Muslim countries. But does that include the national rallies, public debates, major talking points, bumper stickers, et cetera, that abortion does? Do feminists vote for president based on who they think will do the most to help women in Muslim countries, the way some of them vote for president based on who they think will keep abortion legal? No.
“You can’t be pro-life and feminist without some serious cognitive dissonance. The pro-life stance is that the fetus is more important than the women, every time, and that’s not particularly feminist.”
The pro-life stance is that human beings deserve to be treated as human beings, regardless of whether they’re born or not. It’s not that “the fetus is more important than the woman” – it’s that unborn children shouldn’t be killed because women don’t want to give birth to them.
“Sure, you can hold beliefs that women should be educated equally, should have equal opportunities for work, should be treated the same—but you know, I don’t even see a whole lot of that here.”
Maybe that’s because we figure it’s a given.
“I’ve seen what modern feminists are like. They aren’t ANYTHING like what you’re conjecturing—because really, you’ve not given me much proof. I’m your age, and graduated from a similar school. Maybe you’re having these experiences because you’re looking for them.”
Oh, hon, I wish. I was psyched to be going to Smith. I’d just graduated from Catholic school and I was excited to be going to a school that’s regarded as one of the most gay-friendly colleges in America. I figured that even if I might have some disagreements with other people over ideological issues, we could get along because after all, we were intelligent people and that meant we were intelligent enough to express ourselves without degrading others.
Then I found out that I was at a school where people voicing minority opinions were literally shouted over so no one could hear them, where posters advertising conservative events were routinely stolen or defaced, where people would blithely sit around at lunch talking about how “Christians are scary” without any fear that someone would call them on it. What “proof” am I supposed to be able to provide? Surveys from modern feminists in which 79% of them admitted that yes, they’re intolerant?
Did you provide any particularly scathing quotes from the “leaders of the movement?” Anything that casts them in an intolerant light? I assume you’ve looked at NOW’s Web site. Have you seen their “Mothers Matter, Caregivers Count” section? How is that intolerant? What about their push for more rights and support for women with disabilities? That’s crazy intolerant, right?
The bottom line is this: If you’re going to say the leaders of a movement support intolerance, if you’re going to say you disagree with a movement or see “a lot” of members who are not acting according to those beliefs, provide some proof. Some quotes, articles, something. No, I don’t want a survey, but you’re pretty quick to say that feminists don’t represent you, but there’s no indication that they don’t, besides your pro-life beliefs. I’m not going to cast aspirations on the whole of the pro-life movement because of the behavior of a few members—and that behavior is documented online.
What you’re telling me is that you went to a college knowing the political climate, knowing it differed from your own, and you were surprised when you were in the minority. Jill posted an article that’s still on the front page of the site encouraging pro-lifers to show up to a Planned Parenthood dinner to behave in exactly the same manner you hold as so despicable here. Where’s the outrage for that? Did you call your peers on their religious intolerance? Did you speak up? Because you’re not doing it here. Have you once spoken up when someone has besmirched a pro-choice individual SOLELY because they were pro-choice? Or when HisMan has besmirched a non-Christian SOLELY because of their beliefs? Practice what you preach. Or is it okay when you agree with the intolerance?
Hippie tried to prove that assertive women don’t breed, that women were evolved to be submissive; some of the more religious posters on the site blame feminism for everything from god’s wrath to Obama’s election. Not all of you figure it’s a given; don’t pretend you do.
Even if a fetus were granted personhood, and full rights, making abortion illegal would grant those fetuses greater rights than the woman. No person alive has the legal right to live off another exclusively. Parents can put their children up for adoption, children can put their older parents in nursing homes. You cannot legal force someone to be a caregiver. To make abortion illegal is forcing a woman to be a caregiver, and that’s not feminist.
Those groups I told you about fighting for Islamic women’s rights hold meetings and protests, they lobby the UN, and they do vote for candidates based on those issues. The key in your statement is that SOME feminists vote based on abortion rights. Some feminists also vote based on foreign policy and feminism. It’s about individual priorites.
“Did you provide any particularly scathing quotes from the “leaders of the movement?””
If I did, would that change your mind? No. Not going to waste the time.
“I assume you’ve looked at NOW’s Web site. Have you seen their “Mothers Matter, Caregivers Count” section? How is that intolerant? What about their push for more rights and support for women with disabilities? That’s crazy intolerant, right?”
I’m glad to hear it. My point still stands: Why is abortion the thing they spend the most time drawing public attention to?
“No, I don’t want a survey, but you’re pretty quick to say that feminists don’t represent you, but there’s no indication that they don’t, besides your pro-life beliefs.”
Aren’t you GLAD I don’t identify as a feminist in the modern sense? That doesn’t make you happy that I’ve abandoned my “cognitive dissonance”? It’s getting to be like “The Godfather: Part III” around here: just when I thought I was out, you (try to) pull me back in.
“I’m not going to cast aspirations on the whole of the pro-life movement because of the behavior of a few members—and that behavior is documented online.”
Good, because you seemed ready to do that a few posts back. Glad you’ve changed your mind.
“What you’re telling me is that you went to a college knowing the political climate, knowing it differed from your own, and you were surprised when you were in the minority.”
That sentence doesn’t even make any sense. How could I be aware it was different from me AND surprised I was in the minority?
What surprised me was the complete lack of respect for freedom of speech. Not the pro-choicers or liberals.
“Jill posted an article that’s still on the front page of the site encouraging pro-lifers to show up to a Planned Parenthood dinner to behave in exactly the same manner you hold as so despicable here. Where’s the outrage for that?”
I didn’t read that one, actually. Does it encourage pro-lifers to spend the entire time shouting so loudly that no one can hear the pro-choicers, or does it encourage them to protest outside the building?
“Did you call your peers on their religious intolerance? Did you speak up? Because you’re not doing it here.”
I’m not seeing the “religious intolerance.” I’ve reminded people a few different times that not everyone on this board is a Christian, I think.
“Have you once spoken up when someone has besmirched a pro-choice individual SOLELY because they were pro-choice?”
No. They’re free to criticize all they want, and the pro-choicers are free to criticize us all they want. I just ask that people be respectful of each other as human beings and not make baseless accusations.
“Or when HisMan has besmirched a non-Christian SOLELY because of their beliefs?”
I never read HisMan’s posts; I quit after he started on some anti-gay rant a while back.
“Hippie tried to prove that assertive women don’t breed, that women were evolved to be submissive; some of the more religious posters on the site blame feminism for everything from god’s wrath to Obama’s election. Not all of you figure it’s a given; don’t pretend you do.”
Where? I don’t read every post in this site. If a conversation is going in a direction that doesn’t interest me, I quit reading it.
Prove people here disagree that should be educated equally, should have equal opportunities for work, and should be treated the same.
“You cannot legal force someone to be a caregiver. To make abortion illegal is forcing a woman to be a caregiver, and that’s not feminist.”
If it’s between making someone be a caregiver for nine months and killing another human being, I’ll go with making someone be a caregiver for nine months, thanks. Also, actions have consequences. The vast majority of women seeking abortions aren’t pregnant because of rape or incest. They had sex knowing pregnancy was a possibility, and undertook the risk anyway.
“Those groups I told you about fighting for Islamic women’s rights hold meetings and protests, they lobby the UN, and they do vote for candidates based on those issues. The key in your statement is that SOME feminists vote based on abortion rights. Some feminists also vote based on foreign policy and feminism. It’s about individual priorites.”
Glad to hear it. Still, the energy, publicity, and time that feminists give to working to keep abortion legal is way more huge than the e,p,t that they give to Muslim women. If that’s their priority, that’s their priority. Why should I be a part of a group that has different priorities than I do, when I have a staunch opposition to one of their main priorities? I’m not getting you here. Do you want me to be a feminist or not?
“No person alive has the legal right to live off another exclusively. Parents can put their children up for adoption, children can put their older parents in nursing homes.”
Adopted children and people in homes are in most cases living off of others, however, not always one person exclusively but sometimes.
If a pregnant mother is living with someone else, receiving assistance for food and healthcare, others are contributing to her fetus and he/she is no longer living exclusively off the mother.
With your totally, only totally self-sufficient women would be allowed to abort.
Marauder,
I feel like there is a lot of Alaska that should be preserved I think it’s one of our national treasures. It seems like I read somewhere that she was more for drilling than protecting the environment. I read a lot but can’t cite the source. I will do some research. I’m pro business but there’s things that we just need to leave alone.
Less-
You believe that it is a testament to her power as a woman that she has the right to abort her baby. I believe it is a testament to her lack of power that would cause a woman to abort. And as women we have a lot more power than our mother and grandmothers so the very least we can do is fight for our offspring. It’s like the scripture that says he that does not rule their own spirit is like a city without walls I think the same could be said of our bodies he or she who does not rule their own body is also like a city with no walls. It denotes power of self to protect the baby.
Less, I would thank you to not speak about me in a condescending tone nor take what I said out context to suit your point of view or to launch personal attacks on other commenters here. There is a difference between sharing ones personal experience (i.e. saying “In my situation…” or “This is my personal experience…”) or making a personal observation and giving ones opinion (i.e. saying “I feel…” or “I personally believe…”) on a single topic or issue verses taking only ancedotal evidence from a single incidence or ancedotal evidence which only supports your point of view and applying it to generalize/stereotype all the outcomes of a specific situation and to try to pass it off as if it’s fact! It’s also known as comitting the fallacy of hasty generalization.
*Correction: “out ofcontext…”
An example of a hasty generalization from a few threads back: when a pro-choicer (was it you?) shared their negative experience of a CPC, but committed the fallacy of hasty generalization by deducting that because they had a negative experience at one CPC, that they all must be like that. And they linked to a political activism website which drew the same conclusion and also commited the fallacy by only using ancedotal evidence and isolated incidences which supported their viewpoint to draw generalized conclusions on CPCs and try to pass it of as fact.