Stanek weekend question II: Is Randall Terry’s run for president helpful or hurtful to the pro-life cause?
I wrote last December that pro-life activist Randall Terry had decided to run for president in the 2012 Democrat primary with the express goal of airing a graphic abortion ad during the Super Bowl.
This week Terry’s first ad began airing in Iowa. The Daily Caller reports it “will run prime-time in the Des Moines market on all the major local affiliates – CBS, NBC, FOX, CNS and ABC.” Terry wrote in an email alert the ad would also run in Sioux City. This ad isn’t graphic. The FCC rule forcing stations to air unedited ads by political candidates apparently does not yet apply…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSjH4ZZAtYs[/youtube]
Terry has received a fair amount of press coverage (here, here, and here, for example) about his ad.
Pro-aborts are preoccupied with the aborted babies Terry eventually hopes to show America. From RH Reality Check:
Randall Terry said he would run against Barack Obama so he could buy Super Bowl ads with gruesome pictures of aborted fetuses. His “path to the presidency?” He’s going beat Obama in a Democratic primary.
Well, probably not with this ad, since it attacks the President using Republican talking points. Oh, and no little dismembered limbs, either.
From Jezebel, a little alarm mixed in with the ridicule:
The Daily Caller casually notes that Terry’s “running mate is effectively a dead fetus,” and that’s a pretty accurate characterization….
But thankfully, there are no dead fetuses in the television ad that Terry has already gotten at least one Iowa television station to agree to air….
But that doesn’t mean things won’t get uglier. In the show candidacy of Missy Smith in Washington D.C. that Terry helped mastermind last year, the goal was to get bloodied fetuses on television. At the time, lawyers for the local stations said they were compelled to show because of courts’ interpretation of the Communications Act as pertaining to candidates….
Incidentally, Terry’s response to the Republican party’s record on restricting women’s choices is on record in musical form…
Here it is, entitled, “Randall Terry vs Obama 2012 Nomination Song”:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRa-gf1udgM[/youtube]
I gotta tell you, I’m loving all this. Terry, for all his flamboyance, is keeping abortion in the public eye.
But I”m edgy like that.
What are your thoughts? Do you think Terry’s run for president will be helpful or hurtful to the pro-life cause?
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.
Go Terry!
With the leftist media attacking him, the message will be publicized, and more front and center for the other candidates to pick up and address.
I like the piano-man rendition. More effective than the ad. This could be fun – but honestly, the ads have to be less-over-the-top to be effective: more sensitive to the women hurt or children killed by abortion or the children who will have to pay the bills for our government. I only see him getting some of the word out. If he wants to go national, ads/message will have to get more professional, eye-catching and content to pull in the common man (and woman). We’ll see.
Randall Terry is a known quantity. As soon as he realizes his novelty candidacy isn’t interesting or controversial enough to buy him the kind of media attention (and thus money, which is what he’s really after) he wants, he’ll move on to some other grift.
Hurtful.
Randall Terry is a known quantity. As soon as he realizes his novelty candidacy isn’t interesting or controversial enough to buy him the kind of media attention (and thus money, which is what he’s really after) he wants, he’ll move on to some other grift.
Oh, I reaaaaally hate to do this, but – I’m going to agree with joan on this.
Hurtful, definitely. It frankly terrifies me that Randall Terry has even a theoretical chance of getting into the White House. The man is a loose cannon, which is useful sometimes in terms of activism, but it’s the last thing you want in the Oval Office. Yes, he’s pro-life. Not being pro-life instantly makes you a bad political candidate. Being pro-life is only one of a laundry list of positions necessary to make you a good one and on it’s own, that’s not good enough.
And for me, ultimately, that’s the problem I see with this “candidacy.” He’s doing it to get air-time, everyone knows he’s doing it to get air-time, and while it will draw public attention, it does so in a juvenile and impossible-to-take-seriously fashion. It undercuts the gravity of the issue being discussed. And not every “political stunt” does so, but Randall Terry is so transparently grandstanding that his nearly always do. And undercutting the deadly seriousness of the issue of abortion is the absolute last thing we want to do.
Hurtful. Very hurtful.
Randall Terry is a convicted anti-abortion terrorist. He “palled around” with an abortion doctor killer. His candidacy is a joke and will further serve to alienate those in the anti-choice movement from mainstream America. The guy is deranged and very, very dangerous. His anti-choice street theater will hurt the anti-choice movement.
Hurtful.
This man is disgusting and hypocritical.
I don’t wish to be associated with him in any way.
All it really does is make me long for a real pro-life Democratic candidate who had an actual chance of defeating Obama in the primaries.
This is great!! Go Randall Terry! God Bless him for speaking up for the unborn. I’ll be passing this along.
There’s always the question as to whether a candidates run for presidency will be hurtful or helpful ~ especially with the ever so troubling evil that’s currently mis-leading our country; however, if he can show the reality and evils of abortion, I think it’s worth the effort. As Father Pavone says “America will not reject abortion until they see abortion” and you never know who’s view might be changed by witnessing the horrible reaility of abortion ~ and with the corruption and blood money within planned parenthood, we need all the help we can get. May God Bless all who are prolife and may they have the courage to continue this battle.
Dittos, Kel
He is kind of a tragic story, but one we see in politics so often – divorce, public feuding with children (I think he essentially disowned a son, correct?).
I think fringe candidates only make their issues look like fringe issues. If a candidate can’t be taken seriously, it is much easier to discount the beliefs they are trying to hold up.
He disowned a gay son, kicked a pregnant teenage daughter out of the house, and cheated on his first wife many times before leaving her for a younger woman.
I don’t really believe a candidates views are exclusively tied to his morality. You can have good politics and be a person of questionable ethics. What I don’t like is the hypocrisy. It gives the pro-choice crowd something to point at and disregard the moral arguments against abortion. And personally, I believe he will never be able to seriously run against Obama. For all Obama’s flaws, he does seem to be a caring family man. Terry has damaged his credibility so much that he damages the pro-life movement by association. I don’t believe in being horribly condemning of the mistakes he has made, as they are more personal than anything, but I do not wish to be associated with his ilk.
Well… one possible motive (which Jill brought up, actually) for Mr. Terry’s “run” was in order to get explicit abortion images/videos shown on national television (by means of laws which protect such advertisements, I suppose–I’m not an expert in that), not necessarily because he thinks he has a real chance of willing the election. He may be seeking a national “pulpit” for his message (and to wake up apathetic Americans), and nothing more.
That’s a good point Paladin. I wish there was someone less hypocritical to do this though. I really think his life has damaged his credibility.
Jill,
I don’t think Terry’s candidacy is going to be nearly as bad for the pro-life movement as it’s going to be for Terry’s candidacy.
I honor his commitment to the cause and the tremendous early sacrifices he made, but at this point he is like the delightfully nutty uncle who has begun to become unglued. The pro-life movement has grown up and become very sophisticated. Terry has not kept up with the times and has become something of a bully with the younger crowd in the movement.
Yes, he keeps the issue in the news, but his antics make it too easy for a more experenced and seasoned conservative to pick up the cause with a, “Now seriously folks…”
If you want to take a break from the Weiner story, I think you’ll enjoy a piece called Mitt Romney Comes to Michigan and Liberals Have a Hissy Fit http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/06/09/mitt-romney-comes-to-michigan-and-liberals-have-a-hissy-fit/ You won’t believe some of the stuff in that article.
As one who leans left, I don’t mind Romney. I think Romney-Obama would be a win-win for a lot of left leaning folks.
When God made Randall Terry they broke the mold ! He is brilliant, brave, talented, and
one of the greatest pro life heroes I have ever known. What an honor to know him and love
him. There isn’t enough money in the world to pay this man for the time and effort he has
spent for nearly three decades to end the slaughtering of babies in the womb. He has been
lied about and maligned. He has been jailed. He has been bankrupt and he doesn’t stop.
Just keeping the message in front of peoples faces that abortion is MURDER ! His run and ads can only help. Even without the graphic photographs of murdered babies he goes right for the jugular ! Obama is the worst president in history and has blood on his hands. He supports the murder of babies born alive. Go Randall Go I revel in his spirit ! We should all be so committed and unstopable ! He deserves all our respect but make no mistake God will richly reward him on judgement day. He will not get his reward on earth but he doesn’t care he will just keep on until the killing of babies is illegal and then he will rest. I know this to be the truth.
To all that think that this is a publicity stunt: the goal is to keep the victims (the innocent unborn babies murdered in the womb) in the front and center. He is not afraid of the criticism that he will be getting (and is getting) for being a voice for the voiceless. If someone thinks that there is a better person to do this he is all for it. Go for it. This is a lot of hard work and he isn’t afraid of people calling him all sorts of names as long as he can get the victims to be seen. This ad will run more, the stations will play it. Will you help give the victims of this legal murder a voice or will you hinder it? That is the real question. Really people, it isn’t about Randall Terry. It is all about the voiceless victims. Thank God he is willing to give them a voice in the public arena. Also remember that Alice Paul was told by the main stream suffrage movement to play nice and civilized. She was an embarrassment to them. If she hadn’t done what she did and get arrested women still might not be able to vote. It was her radical actions that got women the right to vote.
“To all that think that this is a publicity stunt: the goal is to keep the victims (the innocent unborn babies murdered in the womb) in the front and center. He is not afraid of the criticism that he will be getting (and is getting) for being a voice for the voiceless. ”
I don’t think it’s a publicity stunt. He has been a pro-life activist for years, I am sure he is at least somewhat sincere about his view on abortion. I agree with the commercials. I just dislike Terry and do not support him. He is not a paragon of virtue to be rallied around. I can agree with one of his views without liking him or agreeing with, well, anything else he does. I don’t have to support everyone who is pro-life, that’s nonsensical.
“Really people, it isn’t about Randall Terry. It is all about the voiceless victims. Thank God he is willing to give them a voice in the public arena. Also remember that Alice Paul was told by the main stream suffrage movement to play nice and civilized. She was an embarrassment to them. If she hadn’t done what she did and get arrested women still might not be able to vote. It was her radical actions that got women the right to vote.”
Comparing this man to Alice Paul is offensive to her memory.
The idea of using election laws as legal cover to force publication of effective prolife ads is not without some merit. (I just cringe at the thought of what Terry might end up doing.)
I might suggest that Terry not be alone in his scheme. Perhaps other prolifers ought to run against Obama (or for other offices) in order to get their own prolife ad campaign on TV.
I would feel much more enthusiastic about it if Jill were the one running!
Run Jill Run. Stanek 2012.
I really only remember him when he was all over the talk shows in the ’80’s. Then I heard he traded in his wife and kids for a new set, much like Oral Robert’s son did.
He seems to be as obnoxious as Ann Coulter is to the left. Only without the wit and wisdom.
How unchristian these remarks are. it’s all gossip. Do any of these people know or
care about charity. The question was it go or bad for the pro life movement. The answer is that anything that keeps the topic of slaughtering innocent children in a violent, horrific way should be kept in front of the public since even the word abortion now means nothing ! We have come so far that a diobolical person like Germet Gosnell can get away with stabbing full term babies in the neck and cutting their spinel cords for years under the most vile ccircumstances with cat poop on the floor, blood all over his office and a 15 year old girl giving anathesia and no one does anything. God have mercy on our souls. Just answer the question — is it helpful or not—-can anyting get worse—I honor anyone who is trying to stop this horrror before God steps in and we will all pay the price —the righteous as well. Simi
Missy – since you seem to be well connected, I’d like to know more about the episodes with his children. That is making the most impact on me in regards to my view of him. Please let me know the truth about it.
Thanks,
Alice says: June 11, 2011 at 1:01 pm
“It frankly terrifies me that Randall Terry has even a theoretical chance of getting into the White House.”
===================================================================
‘Go ask Alice’,
Your fear is not unfounded. With the barbarian who is the current occupant of the White House it demonstrates even a man as unqualified as Randall Terry could be elected.
But unlike Randall Terry, b o is neither ‘eligible’ or ‘qualified’ to be president
Personal attacks and gossip are so un-Christian. Why is it that the pro-life movement is so willing to accept, with open arms, some who have erred in their ways in their private lives and condemn others so viciously? It is time to stop the gossip and focus on saving innocent humans that are being murdered in the womb. So many people have said its a great idea if only it wasn’t Randall Terry. People have asked why can’t someone else run? Well people, someone else can run but no one is stepping up to do it. Randall himself has asked for 50 people to run in federal elections across the country running ads in their areas. Where are all the takers? Afraid to ruin their reputations? For some, their reputations aren’t as important as getting the country to see these voiceless victims.
Hans Johnson says: June 12, 2011 at 3:25 am
“I really only remember him when he was all over the talk shows in the ’80?s. Then I heard he traded in his wife and kids for a new set, much like Oral Robert’s son did.”
=====================================================================
Hans,
I am inclined to agree with you.
Moses spent 40 years in the wilderness tending someone elses livestock after he had taken matters into his own hands.
Terry might benefit from a few more years of seasoning.
I don’t see anyone else stepping up to the plate, willing to lean in and take one for the team, cuz when the media hounds are set loose they won’t be lobbing softballs.
But if it is worth doing, it worth doing badly, as opposed to not at all.
To see the leftists in the media squirm in selfimposed silence while they try to ignore what Terry says about their ‘idol’ is worth the price of the ticket. The can’t not respond. Just look what Donald Trump did by raising the issue of b o’s birth certificate. Trumps actions were measureably changing public opinion about b o’s birth status.
You can say what you want about Trump’s motives. Randall Terry’s words and actions have been conistent concerning pre-natal homicide for more than 20 years and he will be the first to agree that his chances of being elected president are about as good as b o waking up tomorrow, a natural born citizen of the USA.
I don’t think his Presidential run will have any effect on anything at all.
Randall Terry will remain a minor blip on the news radar. But if he becomes more than a blip, he will underscore the reputation of the anti-choice movement as being a group of radicals who harass women and promote violence against abortion providers. If he does emerge into the spotlight, the light will be shined on his fellowship and friendship with the murderer of Dr. Barnet Slepain, James Kopp (friend of Ken’s?). His radical Operation Rescue connections (friend of Ken’s?) will be publicized.
And BTW, Ken, when I applied for my first (of many) passports, I didn’t need to submit a long form birth certificate. Even former Republican Governor of Hawaii, Janet Lingle, attested to Obama’s citizenship. Only those with visceral hatred of Obama, coupled with some serious psychiatric delusions, still believe in the “birther” meme. “Trumps actions were measureably changing public opinion about b o’s birth.” Yeah, Ken, Trump ended up as a sick joke (thank you Seth Myers). As I said, hopefully the Planned Parenthood clinic in Arlington TX (as well as the local police department) is aware of ”KBHVAC” as his rants on this blog suggest some serious and potentially threatening issues.
But back to Terry. If he does make it to the mainstream, only the Christian anti-choice zealots, like Ken, will be supporting him. The reality based community will be appalled. As he will represent what is considered the face of the “pro-life” community, he will hurt the movement.
What will be really interesting is if the Catholic Bishops support this criminal.
Gee, if it’s got the trolls in such a tither, maybe it ain’t that bad after all…
“Gee, if it’s got the trolls in such a tither, maybe it ain’t that bad after all”
So not in a tither. Just amused at the possiblity that Terry’s fetus fetishist freak show will go national! And that, of course, will be the end of Randall Terry’s “campaign” and further marginalization of the fetus fetishists.
LOL! Yes, the troll doth protest too much.
“The guy is deranged and very, very dangerous.”
Pro-lifers are soooo marginalized. That’s why the states are passing pro-life legislation all over this country. Cuz we’re sooo marginalized. Riiiight.
You just keep your eye on Terry while we bulldoze right over Roe v Wade. Watch him, CC, watch the birdie!
Ninek- You’re not going to “bulldoze over Roe vs Wade.” If you do, I’ll be sure to change my life’s plans so I can go to med school for the sole purpose of learning to give abortions. No joke. I’ll make sure every young victim of rape has the choice she is entitled to. I’ll drive my Choice Mobile all over the country! I’ll park in front of your house like a creep! Kisses!!!
This is a joke-for the record. Don’t get too worked up about it, ok? Relax. Deep breaths! Can you imagine someone being creepy and psychotic enough to camp out in front of someone’s home over an issue that doesn’t directly affect them? Yikes! That’s called stalking!
CC- Have you been screen capping the violent posts? I recommend doing so. Send them to this page: https://tips.fbi.gov/
Who wants to place a bet that Ashtar could get through med school, and residency and specialization sufficient to conceal the fact of rape, and send young victims back to their abusers as planned parenthood has been shown to do??
Ah Pharmer because bearing an abuser’s child is the healthy alternative!
“Have you been screen capping the violent posts”
I have a few choice “Ken” droppings regarding Dr. Tiller. I also have the one where he “joked” about using his daughter to do a sting on the Arlington Texas Planned Parenthood. He’s an alumnus of the radical Operation Rescue which tells you all you need to know about his vile commentary which he is obviously quite enamored of. He loves to do cutesy “names” for my initials. Let’s hope that Ken doesn’t walk the walk, if you know what I’m saying. Most of the posters here are nowhere near as offensive as Ken except for Franciscan University Dr. Gerard Nadal who can be, on many occasions, a condescending misogynist. But I don’t think he’s dangerous.
a. the term ‘pro-aborts’ is gimmicky as hell. b. I haven’t heard any real mention of this. Probably because no one cares
Thank you, thank you for validating something about which I have commented. It’s a strange term that uses a verb to describe a category. It would be like saying that those who support legal drinking are “pro-imbibes” or that those who are support casino gambling are “pro-bets.” I think the term orgininated with Rush Limbaugh; but I can’t say for sure.
And the histrionic Ninek can, as you say, bulldoze over Roe; but she needs to be prepared for court decisions that bulldoze the bulldozer because even the most conservative members of SCOTUS say that Roe is “stare decisis.” The anti-choice legislation that has sprung up around the country (mostly in states with low health standards and high rates of teen pregnancies) is being challenged. The attempt to congressionally defund Planned Parenthood died in the Senate. “Personhood” Amendments have failed. Meanwhile the enlightened states proudly support a woman’s right to choose. Funny, I thought the GOP was all about the economy…
And yes, Megan, ”pro-life” requires a woman to bear the child of her abuser and her rapist. Of all the things that alienate people from the “pro-life” movement, it’s that. Interestinly, Catholic, pro-life candidate for President, Rick Santorum, said, on yesterday’s Meet the Press, that he supports jailing doctors who perform abortions. Now that’s a popular position! And Pharmer doesn’t seem to realize that Planned Parenthood has not been prosecuted for not reporting child abuse. The DOJ investigated Lila Rose’s sting videos and found nothing. And interestingly, I don’t hear any talk about investigating possible child abuse involving teens who ”do the right thing” and have their babies.
But that some folks (thankfully some are thinking clearly) here love Randall Terry says a lot about the anti-aborts!
Megan,
You would help a friend of yours who is a young, pregnant rape survivor who doesn’t want an abortion? If she wants to raise her child you would be there for her?
You would support her and offer her encouragement and love that baby right?
I mean you aren’t only about ONE CHOICE, right Megs?
Ah Pharmer because bearing an abuser’s child is the healthy alternative!
Her body, her choice and all that jazz.
Carla, I certainly would stand by a friend who decided to bear the child of a rapist. As part of my support, I would make sure that she received intensive counseling regarding the situation. Her body, her choice.
Nice to know, CC.
And yes, Megan, ”pro-life” requires a woman to bear the child of her abuser and her rapist
That statement is a lie. But you know that.
Randall Terry is a truly loathsome excuse for a human being. I would not vote for him any more than I would vote for Hitler, and I am a Jew, although non-observant.
The thought of this monster being elected to ANY political office,let alone President, is truly frightening. He is an anti-abortion fanatioc, a rabid homophobe, a theocratic Christian fanatic and a slimy hypocrite.
Terry has openly stated that he would have abortion doctors executed if he got power. This man is a dangerous fanatic.
CC and Megan and others,
Without even realizing it you call out to those that have conceived in rape and gave birth to their children and are GRATEFUL. You call out to those that have been conceived in rape and love their lives and their mom’s “choice.” You fire up those that conceived in rape, aborted and now would give anything to go back and have their child. And no, saying “I am glad I aborted my child after rape!” does not refute their stories in the least.
They are finding their voices and are speaking out to refute your lies. Their truth rings loud and clear that abortion doesn’t heal rape.
It is your condemnation that shines a light on the ways YOU need to grow.
Keep it up!! :)
Good Golly Miss Molly Robert Berger!!!
Do you think anyone is surprised by your Randall Terry rant?
LOL
Come on, tell us how you really feel.
That’s right, abortion fans, call an innocent human being “the child of the abuser.” He or she couldn’t possibly be a separate human being.
I guess that makes all of us the child of whatever crimes our parents and grandparents committed. And if those crimes are bad enough, even if it was only one parent, then we deserve to die before we’re born. How dare we invade wombs, we pesky criminal parasites, right abortion fans? Cuz that’s all a child is: the moment of their conception. Even though you don’t believe that life begins at conception, you do believe that a baby’s death sentence begins at conception.
And I can’t even begin to start on the hypocrisy that is advocating tearing a baby limb from limb while taking offense at the word ‘bulldoze.’ Wow. Way not to have a clue. Abortion fans are the biggest hypocrites ever to blight the human race. Go ahead with your plans, Ashtar. That’s so noble of you. Especially telling us that you’d kill, out of spite, the very smallest people you can find. Nice. Grandma must be so proud.
There’s a mobile unit that supplies medical care, you know the kind that includes antibiotics and insulin that actually saves lives, and it drives around our area. They go out to the poor and actually provide real help. That I like.
You know, I was thinking over my comment. And it hit me, the irony of abortion fans considering ‘bulldoze’ to be a threat. Where are our children? Where? Those who’s remains didn’t end up in a lab went where? Where do you send ‘medical waste’? Does the magic medical waste fairy take it way to an alternate universe? No, the bodies of aborted children are disposed of right here in our own land.
So, abortion fans (who are giant hypocrites): who is using a bulldozer in real life? You already are. When they push around the ‘trash’ in landfills that includes the bodies of our nations aborted children, they use a bulldozer.
I find that offensive. Very offensive.
Abortion fans? Again, what in the world!?!??!? I’m not a fan of abortion! I’m pro-choice because I’m a fan of CHOICE, PRIVACY, and WOMEN’S RIGHTS.
What planet are you living on?
Pharm- Thanks for making assumption about my intelligence! That really hurts coming from someone who finds Jill Stanek a credible source for, well, anything.
“And yes, Megan, ’pro-life’ requires a woman to bear the child of her abuser and her rapist”
Not sure which part of that statement is a falsehood, unless of course you want to play semantic wordgames and say that the baby is half hers. And you know, I absolutely believe that some women might think that way. More power to them if they decide to keep the baby–whatever they need to do to move on and heal. But that is not a decision that you or any lawmaker should be making for a rape survivor. Violated once, she deserves the opportunity to have a say in what’s taking place inside her body. If I had a friend in that situation, I’d be there for her, no matter what decision she made. Her decision. Hers.
The way many of you see everything as black or white is upsetting. Being pro-CHOICE means we support CHOICE. No one said that every Woman who conceives a child via rape will CHOOSE to terminate the pregnancy. Rather, I support a victims right to CHOOSE to carry the child, or to CHOOSE to terminate the pregnancy. Again, the pro-abortion label is gimmicky, gross, and childish.
“Who wants to place a bet that Ashtar could get through med school, and residency and specialization sufficient to conceal the fact of rape, and send young victims back to their abusers as planned parenthood has been shown to do??”
I don’t like the reasoning here. It’s implied that pregnancy should serve as some kind of evidence of wrongdoing. Once again women are responsible for ending their own abuse. Once that baby belly starts showing, the truth will be undeniable and it’ll all be over, right?
Is it a semantic word game to state the truth that a baby is in fact HERS? Prove that the child biologically isn’t hers as well, Megs. My children are mine and my husbands. Not just a passing thought. A biological fact.
Abortion doesn’t heal rape. It is a secondary trauma to the first.
Funny how you are fine with Supreme Court justices forcing Roe down our throats but you yammer on about prolife lawmakers getting between a woman and her “choice.”
Ashtar,
CHOICE is a euphemism for abortion. Own it. Prochoice to dismember a child in the womb. Embrace what you support.
Pretty black and white for a child in the womb I would say. Choosing life allows them to live. Abortion kills them. Black and white.
Megan- That statement/sentence/insinuation/jab/whatever it was is a mess all around. I don’t know how anyone could parse it out enough to even respond. Honestly, if I turned in a paper with a sentence like that, I’d hope to get an automatic F. It would show me that my teachers are doing their jobs in not allowing someone that screamingly idiotic to get away with it in an academic atmosphere. Yikes!
“Abortion doesn’t heal rape. It is a secondary trauma to the first.”
For some women. For others, no, unless you sincerely believe that women who are at peace with their decision to abort are lying and/or delusional, which I don’t think you really do.
“you are fine with Supreme Court justices forcing Roe down our throats”
Forcing it down your throat? You know that’s just silly, right? They are not forcing anything! The legislation is in place to prevent someone from being forced to carry a child. The legislation ensures CHOICE. No one is trying to force anyone to make that choice- oh wait, anti-choicers are! Whoops! My mistake!
Whether some women believe an abortion heals them or not, or they feel at peace or not, Megan the truth remains the same. A child has died. To say that the killing of our own children has “helped or healed” is a lie.
You know me. I would never call a post abortive woman delusional or a liar. I have been there too.
CHOICE is a word that means, oh yeah, CHOICE. The choice to carry out the pregnancy, or the CHOICE to terminate the pregnancy.
They forced legal abortion on demand through all 9 months of pregnancy, Ashtar. It is silly that you don’t even know the history of what you support.
Good day to you.
“CHOICE is a euphemism for abortion. Own it. Prochoice to dismember a child in the womb. Embrace what you support.”
Not exactly. Anyone who would push any reproductive decision on a pregnant woman isn’t truly pro-choice. The boyfriend who tries to force his girlfriend to get an abortion isn’t pro-choice, he’s pro-power. South Dakota legislators who try to outlaw abortion over and over again aren’t pro-choice. They too are pro-power. Choice only means “abortion” if you’re afraid that women might make executive decisions about their bodies and futures.
I love the fact that Randall Terry’s running as a DEMOCRAT. That’s brilliant. He won’t draw votes from pro-life Republican candidates, and will serve as a good Democrat protest vote. I think it’s really funny. Go Randall!
I not only call you hypocrites, but also cowards. Call it what it is, ladies, and stop using your little euphemisms. Choice = choice to murder a developing child. Without apology, right, ladies?
Bernard Nathanson, who was an abortionist himself for many years, is one of the people responsible for the word “choice” being used to describe feticide. Maybe Ashtar, Megan, CC, and our other abortion fans would like to pick up a little reading material and see what Nathanson had to say in his own words. Check out Amazon.com, they have his books.
Ashtar, abortion fans is what I call everyone who promotes, defends, and advocates for abortion. Some of you even ask each other for autographs, so my term is apt. Don’t believe me? Peruse Jill Stanek’s archives and you’ll see. Now, some abortion fans are misled young people who’ve really not got all the information about what abortion is. Some abortion fans are people like Kermit Gosnell, who actually murders the children with his own hands. Some fans are like our commenter CC who escorts young women into the facility where their children will die, but she doesn’t actually perform the abortions herself. If you don’t like the term “abortion fans” that’s too darn bad. I don’t live a life where I pretend to be unoffensive to everyone, while advocating the brutal slaughter of our smallest human neighbors.
I notice also is Megan’s: unless of course you want to play semantic wordgames and say that the baby is half hers.
Wordgames, eh? When I look in the mirror, I see my father’s eyes, my mother’s nose, and my grandma’s wavy hair and my other grandma’s jawline. Is that a wordgame? I think not. I am both my mother’s and my father’s child. And I thank God everyday for all their hard work and love.
“Choice = choice to murder a developing child”
Neither law nor mainstream biology texts classify it as murder. Many mainstream religious groups, who support a woman’s right to choose, do not consider it murder. Getting hysterical about it won’t change things.
Well, CC, when archeologists find the remains of the babies who were killed, you won’t have any control over what word they use to describe the infanticides of the 1960’s-2010’s.
Maybe, just maybe, they’ll refer to it as murder. Especially when they find the injuries to the pre-natal skulls that your idols Gosnell and Tiller specialized in when they performed late term infanticide.
Getting euphemistic won’t make those 60 million babies any less dead. Abortion doesn’t terminate something, it kills someone.
But ladies, I find your discomfort with the word murder very telling. Don’t have the belly for what you advocate, hmm? I don’t blame you for that. That blood that runs downs the legs of post-abortive women? It ain’t from the Halloween store.
CC will no doubt correct my use of the word infanticide. Yes, because ‘what a difference a day makes.’ If you can call murder ‘choice’ then I can call a fetus at 20 weeks a ‘baby.’ Since I was born premie, I was a baby even though a child who’s murdered at the same stage of development is called by abortion fans ‘fetus’ because they don’t have the intestinal fortitude to call it a baby.
You have never impressed me with you wordgames, abortion fans. And I’m even less impressed with your cowardice.
Yeah, let’s not get hysterical about life and death. Same difference.
For you, Ninek and any proabort with the intestinal fortitude to read it. It is about the illegal dumping of the bodies of aborted babies. I know you think that The Fetus Fairy waves her wand and they magically disappear but they actually are just considered “medical waste” and dumped. The bodies have to go somewhere………
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/13/second-texas-abortion-center-illegally-dumping-aborted-babies/
Yikes! This has been a lovely source of sociological study, to be sure. I love science so much!
Riddle me this.
If it’s not a baby how can it have a body? A body that needs to be disposed of? I suppose you could just say, “It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus.” Right? Right.
If someone want’s legalized abortion, they are “pro-legalized abortion.” Easy enough to legitimately shorthand that to “pro-abortion.”
Pro-aborts do it to us too, after all, saying we’re “anti-choice,” when we prefer “pro-life.”
Both sides are going to try to use their own branding to set the terms of the debate. I don’t really whine that much about pro-aborts trying to paint me as “anti-choice.”
Fight over the terms as we fight over whether or not we’ll have a culture which respects unborn life or not. See who wins. Let’s do it. I think pro-lifers have the stronger case.
Great link, Carla, and how timely! It proves there’s a big difference between who metaphorically uses a bulldozer, and who actually uses a bulldozer.
Ashtar, if you’re so interested in socialogical study then I dare you to read both of Bernard Nathanson’s books: Aborting America and The Hand of God. In fact, I triple dog dare you. “Choice” is a term deliberately used to euphemize cold blooded murder for hire. People who prey on the fears and problems of pregnant women are choosing to cash in on murder. Study that.
The DOJ investigated Lila Rose’s sting videos and found nothing.
Really? Where’s the DOJ report? Link?
****
If someone want’s legalized abortion, they are “pro-legalized abortion.” Easy enough to legitimately shorthand that to “pro-abortion.”
Fabius, that’s a logical explanation! To add to that, I’d say if a person receives a paycheck or works as a volunteer, or supports the CHOICE to abort nominally or via monetary donation, then they can reasonably be called a pro-abort.
(Ha, Ninek, I see you beat me to this point with the reference to Nathanson:)
As Carla mentioned, “pro-choice” is just a euphemism for abortion.
The right to choose to kill one’s own offspring may be a woman’s legal choice at this time in history , but one that is on shaky moral ground, to say the least.
CC,
Speaking of your initials, I always guessed they stood for “confused catholic” or code for “Cece”, as in Richards.
“Really? Where’s the DOJ report? Link?”
Better question: where are the indictments?
“Really? Where’s the DOJ report? Link?”
Better question: where are the indictments?
Joan, You’ve go to have a report first. Where can one find the official DOJ report? Rachel Maddow’s news show doesn’t count. Sorry.
“Really? Where’s the DOJ report? Link?”
Right here:
Eric Holder: No prosecution in Planned Parenthood video sting
The Justice Department has no plans to bring any criminal charges in connection with video stings in which conservative activists posing as pimp and prostitutes sought to obtain services from Planned Parenthood clinics.
“It is my understanding that the FBI has looked at that and prosecution was declined in that matter,” Attorney General Eric Holder said at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday morning.
Planned Parenthood said it called in the FBI last year after learning about the sting. Conservative anti-abortion activists with a group called Live Action said clinic employees expressed no concern or objection when told that the potential patients were teenagers that had been brought in from other countries to work as prostitutes.
Planned Parenthood said most of its staffers didn’t understand the visitors to its clinics to be underage prostitutes. However, the abortion and reproductive health care provider did fire a clinic manager in New Jersey who was said to have violated the clinic chain’s standards.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0311/Eric_Holder_No_prosecution_in_Planned_Parenthood_video_sting.html
And I really don’t care what Bernard Nathanson thought about anything. He is hardly a paragon of scientific thinking. He was, like Bob Novak and Larry Kudlow, another conservative Jew who was brought into “holy, mother church” by an Opus Dei Catholic Bishop. Meanwhile medical schools across the country are still providing instruction on abortion techinques. Meanwhile, the majority of American Jews are pro-choice. (Too bad there’s no Inquisition, eh?)
And regarding being “pro-abortion” – that means that I and my fellow travelers advocate abortions. In my case, I don’t really care what choice a woman makes. The important thing is that she has the choice. Contrary to the bizarre projections of the ”pro-life” movement, we dont’ rub our hands gleefully at every abortion. On the other hand, you folks get positively orgasmic over every “saved” “baby” from the “abortion mill.” (Wow – three anti-choice agit-prop words/phrases used in one sentence.)
Wow, what an abortion fan knows about Bernard Nathanson would fit in Barbie’s thimble. CC, why don’t you try actually reading his books? He IS the one who started the whole “choice” euphemism AND he didn’t experience a religious conversion until DECADES after he began working in the pro-life movement. You seem to like picking and choosing from your idols’ works and words.
You’re so fond of your hopeless abortion-loving religious folks. Any person claiming to be a Jew that would kill the messiah in the womb is an oxymoron, or an atheist, or both.
Escorting young women into a butcher shop that kills their babies for money isn’t pro-choice, it’s pro-murder.
Why are you so squeamish, CC? I totally don’t respect a squeamish murderer. You’re like Jeffrey Dahmer, who admitted he had to get drunk before he could kill. I find it hilarious how you try so hard to distance yourself from the very murder that you promote. You spend all day roaming the internet, telling people that killing babies is so awesome, yet you can’t stomach it yourself. Your initials should be CH: Cowardly Hypocrite.
On the other hand, you folks get positively orgasmic over every “saved” “baby” from the “abortion mill.”
She says that like its a bad thing, LOL!!
Two of my “saves” were born this month. A third has now grown so much, she’s talking. You bet I danced for them! And now, I can hug and cuddle those beautiful children. What do you hug and cuddle? “Medical waste”?
Contrary to the bizarre projections of the ”pro-life” movement, we dont’ rub our hands “gleefully at every abortion”
They have to dream up grotesque strawmen to distance themselves from choices they wish they hadn’t made–that’s why you’re immoral and bloodthirsty, why I’m crazed and seething, why abortion clinics are “mills,” why feminists want to “pick on” unborn children. These projections are more fantastical and pathetic than anything I’ve seen on the cover of National Enquirer. But unlike the features in a tabloid rag, antichoice conspiracy theories affect women’s lives in huge ways, fueling the politician-demagogues who would do anything to stay in power (and do you really think your senators and governors care about unborn babies? Ha!).
“Any person claiming to be a Jew that would kill the messiah in the womb is an oxymoron, or an atheist, or both”
Ah, the esteemed Talmudic scholar, “Ninek” offers her opinion that is so much more grounded in theology than those who spend a lifetime in Judaic studies. But once again, the underlying anti-Semitism of the anti-choice movement rears its ugly head. While pro-choice clergy don’t insult those clergy who do hold “pro-life” views, the anti-choicers, like so many on this blog, claim that pro-choice clergy are wrong. Must be wonderful to be part of the “true” faith.
But way to go, Ninek. If you ever hoped to bring pro-choice Jews into your fold, your comment demonstrates why they will continue to be, proudly, pro-choice. and you continue to denigrate them for it. Way to go, Ninek.
But thanks, Ninek. This one’s a keeper for my comments on pro-choice blogs.
Too bad for Ninek there’s no more Inquisition to bring those Jews back into line!!!!!
“You spend all day roaming the internet, telling people that killing babies is so awesome, yet you can’t stomach it yourself”
Take your ritalin, Ninek. Where did I say that “killing babies is awesome.” Way to go with the projection and hyperbole, Ninek. Simmer down, now. Here’s the thing – terminating a pregnancy is fine with me. It’s legal, too. Imagine that.
“Escorting young women into a butcher shop that kills their babies for money isn’t pro-choice, it’s pro-murder.”
But these women are not being forced into the “butcher shop” and that means that they’re accomplices to “murder.” Right, Ninek. Free will, Ninek. Yeah, I know. That doesn’t fit into your fantasies about Planned Parenthood workers dragging innocent pregnant women into clinic, kicking and screaming while the clinic workers rub their hands together and drool over the money that they will earn doing their “piece work” at the “mill.”
And your “saves” – dream on, Ninek. Whatever…
Lol! Go ahead, CC, quote me – spread my words!
Orthodox Jews already concur with us, not you. And yes, they do tell their more liberal counterparts that they are in the wrong.
As for my saves: When I got to meet one of the little infants, she fell asleep in my arms. It’s a memory that I will treasure as long as I live. Dream on? Yes, because my dream was fulfilled, so I will joyfully dream on.
I ask again, CC, whom or what do you hold and cuddle? “Medical waste”?? Tell us, CC, tell us all about it.
But these women are not being forced into the “butcher shop” and that means that they’re accomplices to “murder.” Right, Ninek. Free will, Ninek. Yeah, I know.
1) “Do what thou will: that is the whole of the law.”
From the Satanic Bible by Anton S. LaVey
2) Yes, young women HAVE been dragged kicking and screaming through Planned Parenthood parking lots. But nice of you to conveniently forget. Parents who force their daughters to murder their grandchildren aren’t really giving them a ‘choice’ in the matter, are they?
CC, tell us, tell us all about the “medical waste” that YOU hold and cuddle. Don’t be squeamish, CC. Own it.
You know that if this was a democrat pulling this type of grand standing about global warming “which is just as big of a pant load of B.S.” you guys would be screaming your heads off about how wrong it was… What a sick double standard.
This is a waste of voter’s time just because this JERK wants to prove how “edgy” he is…
Here is a worthless human being who is just wasting oxygen to keep his 3 brain cells alive… Idiot!
The DOJ investigated Lila Rose’s sting videos and found nothing.
CC,
The politico article you provided is your proof? That’s it?
(excerpt)
“It is my understanding that the FBI has looked at that and prosecution was declined in that matter,” Attorney General Eric Holder said at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday morning.
That’s a definitive statement if I’ve ever heard one. Figures.
Never mind.
CC: “That doesn’t fit into your fantasies about Planned Parenthood workers dragging innocent pregnant women into clinic, kicking and screaming while the clinic workers rub their hands together and drool over the money that they will earn doing their ‘piece work’ at the ‘mill’.”
Right — it’s much worse than that merely mercenary depiction. They’re actually engaging in murder while earnestly imagining they’re doing good.
Furthermore, they’re reassuring rationally and emotionally vulnerable women that their choice is important to accept and embrace as what’s right for them.
So that’s worse still, because they’ve not only utterly corrupted their own innermost selves — they’re doing their level best to render conscience inefficacious in others.
Your description fits someone far closer to redemption.
It’s funny how, when you try to paint your interlocutor as extreme, you so utterly fail — marvelously understating the horror of what people become when they embrace the pro-choice worldview so fully as to participate in the slaughter.
It’s a great industry, where “blood on their hands” isn’t useful as a trope because it’s already exhausted its significance as a literal.
CC: “Where did I say that ‘killing babies is awesome.’ Way to go with the projection and hyperbole, Ninek. Simmer down, now. Here’s the thing – terminating a pregnancy is fine with me. It’s legal, too. Imagine that.”
But it’s not awesome? Why wouldn’t the libertarian exercise of free choice be an instance of the awesome freedom we enjoy as Americans?
Why not grasp that nettle, CC? Merely because it sounds bad?
I think you want to have your cake and eat it too. You wish to sound sane, so you can’t sound as if you celebrate abortion. And yet from a standpoint of civil liberties your view of it should, from a strictly rational standpoint, give it a place in a Norman Rockwell painting.
I’m in earnest. Abortion is either a wonderful opportunity to express our American freedoms, or it’s not. Indeed, in Casey the court opined that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Isn’t that a wonderful thing?
So why wouldn’t abortion be at least as wonderful as a miraculously life-saving eradication of a threatening tumor? Should a woman leave an abortion clinic with her head low in shame, or should she leave with a hitch in her step — feeling as if she’s just ratified her franchise in this wonderful experiment in liberty and personal rights that we call America?
The court sacralized abortion as an instance of the mystery clause in action. What keeps you from joining in the celebration?
rasqual….ummmm, so somebody who supports the DP has to rejoice after every execution? Would they be happy, under your reasoning, of every murder that takes place so that the DP can even exist?
Not a smart argument.
Ex-GOP: Is the death penalty a personal exercise of civil liberties?
If so, you may have a point. If not, why would you draw that as an analogy?
And I’m not really saying that anyone who supports a thing is obliged to celebrate its each and every instance. But I’d expect the occasional anecdotal acquaintance with this blessed event of individual choice to tease a smile from their faces, sure.
Unless they’re not serious about the wonders of living in a country where we actually enjoy civil liberties, that is. Perhaps they’re not really so pro-choice after all?
Why would anyone regret the exercise of personal liberties in the pursuit of happiness? Isn’t this pursuit a good thing, and means of no legal import to it likewise good? Why would women seek something not good? Indeed, it must be a tremendous good — a disproportionately wonderful good — to risk incurring the wrath of freedom-hating, woman-controlling enemies of liberty. It’s not only a good to be celebrated, it’s a courageous act to be cheered.
No?
I’m not engaging in satire here. Seriously.
We in this country have lots of things that are free, yet lead to death and bad things – our love of guns, 75 mile an hour speed limits, fast food. I don’t see your connection of something being free and thinking it must be “awesome”.
I just wish the pro-choice side would just say “hey, yes, we know it is killing – but you know what, it’s a right, and we in America have rights in which people die.” There’s no real way to justify abortion except that the courts say it is legal, so therefor, it is permissible. Not moral, not good, not anything but legal. There you have it.
If you came from a country where police arrested you for eating french fries, you would indeed celebrate an unhealthy trip to McDonalds. And rightly so.
If you came from a country where thugs ran loose and you couldn’t protect your family because gun possession was a crime (whoops! Chicago and DC until recently!), you too would celebrate the second amendment.
When we have these liberties, we may be able to yawn about them. “What’s the fuss? Yeah, we’re glad we have them, but no need to yodel about ’em.” But that’s not how pro-choice folk view this liberty they claim. They see it as in constant peril. The darkness is just outside the gate. The very light of womyn’s equality could be extinguished with the merest stroke of a vile Republican president’s pen.
When a valuable thing is threatened, its miraculous preservation against all odds generally results in celebration, yes. And this is precisely the status abortion rights groups attribute to abortion rights in America.
And really, no, we have no rights in American in which any of us are responsible for the death of others in the way mothers and abortion service providers are responsible for the death of the unborn. There’s no comparison whatsoever from an arguable moral standpoint.
Try arguing the matter and see. ;-)
“But it’s not awesome? Why wouldn’t the libertarian exercise of free choice be an instance of the awesome freedom we enjoy as Americans?”
It is such an instance. But what does that say about the action itself? Very little.
“And yet from a standpoint of civil liberties your view of it should, from a strictly rational standpoint, give it a place in a Norman Rockwell painting.”
Does that mean that someone who believes that a white power rally is a protected form of speech must celebrate the content of that rally in order to be consistent from a “strictly rational standpoint”? Of course not.
What content is there in an abortion?
I think most pro-choice feminists see abortion as a very affirmative thing, not at all on a level with expressions of white power.
joan: deflection FAIL.
cc: See how Ex-G tells it? That’s not bein’ yellow.
Alright, enough of this stupid attempt at a “gotcha.” What do you want them to say–that they’ve got an insatiable bloodlust for unborn humans? Sorry but the image of the abortion-loving, savage bogeyman exists in your mind only, and it’s called guilt. And I’d be appreciative if you didn’t try to absolve it by manipulating other women’s bodies in the name of “compassion.”
“stupid attempt at a ‘gotcha’?”
To whom are you speaking just here? ”the image of the abortion-loving, savage bogeyman exists in your mind only”
It’s seeming to me that the image of those with the image you describe, exists in your mind only.
I haven’t read the whole thread, but from prior visits to this forum I don’t recall seeing any pro-life comments that trend in the direction you suggest.
By the way, we had a draft during the most serious wars the country has faced. We men were shipped off to die by the tens of thousands.
Meanwhile, y’all womenfolk can’t even bear a child in peacetime without makin’ a civil war outta the issue. Gotta chop it up like the Claymore did to the VC.
Do you approve of the draft in time of war (e.g. WWII)?
Then there are those of us who volunteered to die (if necessary) so you could what — expect the unborn to volunteer to die? No. No more than the Revolutionary War was fought so that free men could own slaves.
Someday your ilk will be viewed through the same historical lens as slaveholders.
This argument reminds me of this comic, just saying. Not judging, but people might want to calm down a bit and try to rationally debate.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2256#comic
Rasqual:
“And really, no, we have no rights in American in which any of us are responsible for the death of others in the way mothers and abortion service providers are responsible for the death of the unborn. There’s no comparison whatsoever from an arguable moral standpoint.”
Well, except for the DP.
Anyways, so does a person feel morally superior because the right they support only gives a greater chance at death, but not certain death? ”Oh, I support gun rights, but it is okay – nobody will SURELY die, there’s just a greater statistical chance”. I don’t know if that is the moral high ground in which you hope it is.
To be fair, I think plenty of people celebrate the pro-choice stance and exercising the freedom to abort in a pregnancy. I think it is dumb, but I think that there are those that celebrate.
No, ex-GOP, the DP is not the exercise of a personal right. Not in the least.
Please find just one sentence, in any legal journal whatsoever, during any timeframe in history, that posits the DP as an exercise of a citizen’s civil liberties, rights, whatever.
Good grief.
And there’s not a greater statistical chance of death with gun rights. Good grief. Let’s be fact-based, OK? Tens of millions of new guns have been sold in the U.S. in the last 20 years and violent crime has gone down. I’m not going to bother to assert cause/effect — the data suffices to show the contrary assumption by untutored enemies of the second amendment to be false.
There’s no sense wondering where moral high ground is if even the facts elude you.
JackBorsch: That’s a hilarious comic, though I’m not sure how it applies here. I always call folks what they like to call themselves (thus, “pro-choice”) but that hardly means embracing their narrative.
And who’s not being calm? As for rational debate, you’re seeing it. You’re seeing the notion that the DP is an individual right utterly failing to be rationally defended. At the moment, it’s just a peculiar viewpoint from someone who apparently doesn’t understand the difference between rights of individuals and acts of the state.
That’s a really bizarre thing to be confused about, since the Bill of Rights was established to protect the rights of individuals against potentially invasive actions of the federal government.
“I think most pro-choice feminists see abortion as a very affirmative thing, not at all on a level with expressions of white power.”
I don’t see what this has to do with your argument here. Your original claim seems to be that for the demands of intellectual consistency to be satisfied, anything that is the product of an exercise of free choice simply must be exalted as wonderful, beautiful, and desirable, simply because it follows from the exercise of free choice. This is a conclusion that could only follow from the shallowest survey of the things that Americans take for granted as personal rights. After all, instances of the “libertarian exercise of free choice”, to the extent that you’re using this phrase as a proxy for the exercise of constitutionally-guaranteed rights, would necessarily include things that most people would find unpleasant or even abhorrent–again, my example of a white power rally.
@rasqal, I was directing that to the conversation above where people were mischaracterizing each other’s viewpoints. And there is a lot of mocking going on earlier on the thread. I just think its funny. One person says, “I believe women have rights to their own bodies, but a fetus is a separate body.” The other one says “See? You are totally pro-slavery for women you fascist misogynist jerk!” It’s a little ridiculous. Both sides do it.
Joan: The participants in the white power rally, certainly, should be celebratory. Obviously their detractors would not be smiling.
Likewise, a woman having an abortion should be overjoyed to be celebrating her free choice (quite apart from any regrets concerning what circumstances brought her to the choice in the first place). And likewise, those who differ with her view of the unborn would not be smiling.
Your objection confuses the participant’s happy exercise of their rights with their detractors’ contempt for the content of that exercise.
Jack: Thanks for the clarification. That’s definitely part of rational debate. :-)
Rasqual, Thanks for commenting!!
“Meanwhile, y’all womenfolk can’t even bear a child in peacetime without makin’ a civil war outta the issue.”
1. No, I don’t support the draft. Fighting in WWII disabled a grandfather and great uncle for life. I would never, ever impose that on anyone. If the military needs recruits, they can offer better incentives.
2. Nice to know that you believe a woman’s principle purpose is to bear children–clearly talking to a troglodyte who isn’t worth half my time.
3. I didn’t volunteer to live in a country that presumes to tell me what can happen within the walls of my physical person.
3. The southern patois doesn’t lend anything to your agument.
4. There are women in the military, in case you forgot.
Abortion kills more living, developing children in the United States in one year than ALL the casualties of ALL the wars the US has been involved in COMBINED.
Your bloodlust for the tiny vs. your concern for your own family is just another symptom of your sick hypocrisy. A child is not less valuable than an adult. Both are equal in value and dignity. BOTH. See how I spell both, Megan, B.O.T.H. see? Now, go ahead and twist it to say that I value the fetus more than the mother, Megan, because that’s the lie you all love to cling to.
Megan: First, you’d do well to rescind your “clearly” language, since you don’t know anything about me nor the uses to which I put rhetoric. Polemics is for discovery as much as for advocacy, in case you were unaware.
Your epistemology could do with some calibrating if you believe you have warrant to “know” that I believe a woman’s principle purpose is to bear children. On the other hand, I don’t believe that a woman’s purpose is to kill her unborn child.
There are also women in CEO positions. Yet feminists regularly speak of the proportion as evidence of injustice.
How many women died in combat in WWII versus men? Do you consider the obvious answer an injustice?