Marcotte: Pro-lifers motivated by “problem with female sexuality”
by Carder
To know what the actual anti-choice movement is about, you need to look at what its members do, not what some random people say about how they label themselves.
And, increasingly, anti-choice activists are free about their larger objections to women being able to choose non-procreative sex.
Indeed, when I first started writing on the topic of reproductive health care, even the slightest intimation that anti-choicers have a problem with female sexuality was enough to cause conservatives to cry foul and howl about how they don’t care what you do in bed, it’s about “life,” and blah blah blah.
~ Amanda Marcotte (pictured), alleging that pro-lifers’ anger over women engaging in sexual activity is the underlying reason for being pro-life, RH Reality Check, January 27
[Photo via Marcotte’s Twitter page]
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.
No, I don’t care what other people do in bed, as long as they don’t kill their offspring as a consequence of those “bed activities”. They can swing from chandeliers for all I care. But if it ends in killing an innocent child as a consequence of all that fun, then yes – I have a problem with it. If people want to be promiscuous, but take full responsibility for their actions and give life to a child if one happens to come along – that’s fine by me.
All I can say is that all the free, unfettered, non-procreative glorious female sexuality Marcotte is enjoying doesn’t help her look any happier in her photographs.
I mean, the Marcotte Laser Death Stare is really spooky…
Honestly, it seems like she doesn’t know any pro-lifers and has never had a conversation with one. Does she consider herself a journalist?
Pray for Amanda.
Del,
Look in her eyes.
Carla: A few days ago I did an internet search for images of Amanda, to do the exercise that you just recommended. Always so angry and sad and empty.
Meanwhile…. Pro-lifers are not interested in controlling anyone’s sex life. Really — we don’t want to be responsible for anyone’s sexual decisions, and we certainly don’t want to make your decisions for you.
– We want to protect innocent children from murder by abortion.
– We want to protect women from abuse from boyfriends/families/employers who use coercion, abandonment and fear to make women seek abortions.
– We want to protect women from predatory behavior of the abortion industry, and from the unsafe clinics and quack butchers.
But it is true that we have accumulated a great deal of data about contraception, and we would like to see women well-educated about the dangers of contraception — so they can make better choices. Because we trust women.
Does anyone actually care what Amanda Marcotte thinks? Because, honestly, I don’t.
Also, it goes without saying that she needs to learn that the term is pro-life, not anti-choice. I can’t take someone’s views seriously when they can’t get the basic terminology right.
If “prolifers” have objections to women having non-procreative sex, wouldn’t these same ”prolifers” have objections to men having non-procreative sex? It still takes two to tango, doesn’t it?
So in the end Ms. Marcotte has shockingly revealed that some people believe non-procreative sex is immoral. What an insight Amanda! Who knew that some people, including prolifers, actually believe that sex for everyone should be procreative? I wonder if Amanda has ever heard about Catholicism? Or that the majority of Catholics are prolife?
I suspect that Ms. Marcotte’s real reason for wanting to speculate about the views of some prolifers towards non-procreative sex is because she doesn’t want to defend her position of supporting the slaughter of innocent human beings inside the wombs of her fellow “sisters.” It is a lot easier for Amanda to wag her finger at those prudes who fuss about non-procreative sex than it is for her to justify the dismembering or poisoning of an innocent human being.
Does it matter what we think about what Marcotte does with whatever species or sex of partner she chooses? As long as she stays away from the kiddies, she can make herself as unhappy as she wants. How would we be able to do anything about it anyway?
Maybe she gets mad if I laugh at her cranky self ???
Maybe she got some negative feedback during the last trip to the emergency room. [Blames the thought on Tyler’s last post….. ;-) ]
Since there are only a handful of days out of any given month during which a woman who isn’t on birth control is actually potentially able to procreate, “non-procreative sex” likely happens much more often than procreative sex. Or maybe Ms. Marcotte isn’t aware of how women’s fertility actually works…?
Isn’t it like 3 days Kel???
THREE!!!
Sorry pro-aborts, but I just don’t have the time or energy to care about your sex lives. I barely have the time or energy to brush my hair in the morning. Truly, there is no conspiracy. Thinking otherwise is just a result of your narcissism.
It sounds like she has bought into and perpetuated a conspiracy theory about the pro-life movement. There is nothing like projecting a stereotype upon millions of people to make yourself look dumb. As one of many sexually active empowered pro-life females, I find it laughable that she cares to comment on our sexuality and its timing.
Lol. She’s obviously not spent much time around pro-lifers. If anything it seems that people think male sexuality is the problem, that seems to be the stereotype for the occasions that the conversation is on sex instead of babies. And I think she takes people’s personal opinions on what’s moral and healthy and what isn’t as something the pro-life movement wants to enforce, which certainly isn’t true.
People, this is the cult thinking in action. The Marxist view of the world cannot stand up to reason, once you press it with the slightest bit of logic and reality.
To sustain the Marxist, liberal view of the world, there has to be a “bad-guy” response to any challenge.
If you are pro-2nd amendment, or pro-life, or you believe immigrants should come into the country through some orderly manner as in the rest of the world and not just through an open border, you are having forbidden thoughts. Forbidden thoughts are not acceptable in the cult.
To prove that this thought structure is a cult structure, you merely have to bring up one of these cult-principle issues with a cult member. They will automatically launch into pre-programmed rhetoric that is not focused on the issue, but on the enemy.
Cults developed in the name of Christ do this. An example was the Waco Davidian cult. The LDS Church has teetered on a fine line, with feds ready to invade at one point as well. Etc.
The appeal of a cult is specific: you feel like you are special due to insider knowledge, and you get the satisfaction of being morally superior.
The price is that you have to check your brain at the door, and accept the cult world-view.
The cult world-view ALWAYS includes a big, bad enemy. Usually, that somehow comes to be: The Rest Of The People On The Planet.
To make it easier for these cult members to follow these ridiculous thoughts, they need pep-rally-level constant thought-correction and affirmation regarding not their own beliefs, but about the enemy.
The enemy?
White, Christian stingey bigoted racist oppressors.
For those of us who are pro-life, or Christian, or do not support the idea of an open border with Mexico, we can see how hardly anyone fits the stereotype.
But for these liberal cultists, anyone opposed to their views is in the bad-guy camp.
So, Marcotte, despite seemingly having a decent intellect, can print something so dumb.
And whomever at MSNBC has no second thoughts about their recent distasteful tweet.
These people KNOW they are superior to us bad guys. Their job is to recruit: to sustain and repeat the jingoes so that no one has any space in their brain for decent, logical thought.
These Marcotte comments are laughable to the people I know at my church, the pro-life activists I know, and the crisis pregnancy clinic people I know. I know the husbands, wives, families, etc. This is all laughable.
Someone needs to invite her to church.
Uh, yeah, the Democratic party/leftists in this country are not generally cult members. Have you ever actually been part of a cult or talked to someone who was? There’s really no comparison, and it’s a bit offensive to downplay the damage cults do by acting like a political party you don’t agree with and has some nasty views is one. Party line Dems are really no more indoctrinated than party line Republicans. Now, I think some specific organizations certainly have cult-like red flags, but it’s pretty ridiculous to think half the country are cult members.
Always so angry and sad and empty. – which is it, angry and sad or empty?
This whole “look at the eyes, woo, look at the eyes” is a rather tired ad hominem.
The appeal of a cult is specific: you feel like you are special due to insider knowledge, and you get the satisfaction of being morally superior. – you mean like the secretive structures the Koch’s and their ilk have in place? Or the upper echelons of the RNC?
Nothing in the mainstream political parties can be compare to cults, people. Rude way to try and score points, it’s not okay when either side does it.
Not in the mainstream LDPL no, but not all political groups are ‘mainstream’.
Yeah, like I said. There are specific organizations that give me a “culty” vibe and have some serious red flags (cult survivors tend to watch for these things, because it’s really common to get sucked into another cult when you’re an adult, you’re prone to it if you were raised in one). But overall it’s a silly and foolish ad hominem when it comes to just the average Dem/leftist or Repub/right winger. Most people aren’t in cults. Cults are REALLY damaging and it’s not cool to make light of what they really are to score rhetorical points against an opposing political party/ideology.
There are specific organizations that give me a “culty” vibe – Fox?
I think the screed which invoked ‘cults’ speaks for itself.
Matthew 6:22-23
“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy,[a] your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are unhealthy,[b] your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!”
Matthew 6:22 The Greek for healthy here implies generous.
Matthew 6:23 The Greek for unhealthy here implies stingy.
I think Fox is the propaganda arm of the GOP, just like MSNBC is the propaganda arm for the Dems. I don’t consider anything from either of those organizations “news”,and I don’t trust it unless I can verify their stories from other sources. But cult-like? Nah. They fit propaganda, not cults. I think people misunderstand cults anyway, something isn’t necessarily a cult just because people are zealous or unquestioning about it, or because false information is given as fact. There are a lot of factors that go into whether something is a “cult” or not and it’s not black and white. I think this checklist is pretty good: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm. Not all cults display all the characteristics on that checklist (for example, the cult I was raised in didn’t like bringing in new members, neither does Westboro, but both my parent’s church and Westboro are definitely cults).
Now I do think both the main political parties have some things that might be similar to cults in a way (I don’t like the mindless worship of Obama I’ve seen from some liberals, and I don’t like the way people adulate Reagan, it’s creepy imo), but there is an element of coercion and exploitation that’s missing from things like mainstream political parties and churches and organizations. It’s not even comparable to how cults take over the lives of members and basically own them. I don’t mean to harp on the subject, but it’s not something that should be taken lightly or thrown around to smear the other side. It’s serious business, people get very damaged from cults and usually things like physical and sexual abuse can be very prevalent in such organizations, and calling political ideologies you don’t like cults really does make light of that. People end up having to be deprogrammed and work for years to get out of the cult mindset, no one has to be “deprogrammed” from being a Democrat or Republican, or a conservative or liberal. No one is being indoctrinated and exploited in the insidious ways that cults do these things.
SM, Vita etc., I agree. I have neither the time or inclination to worry about other people’s sex lives. And many prolifers are female. Are we all uncomfortable with our sexuality? I don’t think so!
“Uh, yeah, the Democratic party/leftists in this country are not generally cult members. Have you ever actually been part of a cult or talked to someone Party line Dems are really no more indoctrinated than party line Republicans. Now, I think some specific organizations certainly have cult-like red flags, but it’s pretty ridiculous to think half the country are cult members.”
–I have a lifetime of doing much more in the democratic party than you do. I know hundreds of people pretty well that are “democrats.”
We quit being “democrats” somewhere along the way. We segued from American Democrats to Democratic Socialists, and that is when I jumped off the train.
Sorry, but this is the truth. I have an established record working for Dem campaigns back to before you were born.
Back in the day, you NEVER heard the democratic party boo-ing God, just like Karl Marx would dream of.
At this 2013 Wendy Davis abortion face-off, the pro-life Christians were singing amazing Grace, and the pro-choice demonstrators came up with something very clever – a sustained chant of “Hail, Satan.”
This is not your father’s democratic party.
JFK was totally for the Constitutionally valid 2nd amendment.
Many Dems in the old days were pro-life. Ted Kennedy, and Jesse Jackson.
Something happened along the way.
The Marxists have had a plan all along. Like Obama’s “New Party.”
We used to be respectful of our colleagues across the aisle. Truly and figuratively. We used to be able to tolerate our conservative neighbors. We could tolerate a devoted-Christian demo club member. We could tolerate a pro-life member.
Now, it is simple-minded, knee-jerk vitriol.
I don’t say this lightly.
Come spend some time with me and my family.
The dedicated dems can be controlled to mouth-foment frenzy just by yanking their chains. I am not happy about this. There is great animosity in my family because people know I think it is not OK to kill not-yet-born humans. Just me being around causes a chilling effect.
I know their homes, and their facebook postings, and their casual discussions.
They talk nonsense all the time about the “biogts” and “racists.”
The only way they like Christians is
1 in their candidates – you still almost have to be Christian to run for any position of prominence – Thank God we have these watered-down denominations now-a-days;
2 Negroes. Yes, we simply have to accept that those intellectually-challenged Negroes cling to their Jesus, and boy do we love to feign like we love Jesus , too, as soon as the gospel organ swells when Negroes are in the room.
But as soon as they are gone, we are back to our everyday hate-filled Christian-bashing.
DLPL: you may not get this yet. Are you involved in any Demo-party politics? Are you at campaign headquarters? Fundraisers? I have been in more than I can remember.
Things are not now like they were 3 or 4 decades ago. They simply are not.
List for me the characteristics of a cult, and you will be listing what I see with my long-time friends, family, and associates.
On top of all this, I have devoted a lot of time to reading the history of Marxism, communism, and socialism in the U.S. Why?
To figure out what has happened to my friends and family. They have been fed a belief system that justifies simple-minded, one-sided moral superiority.
As a democrat, or liberal, in a Bible-believing church, I also am around plenty of conservatives, republicans, tea-party people, and arch-conservatives.
In that crowd, I am treated better than I am by family when I espouse views and data that do not fit someone’s paradigm.
I know this issue better than you. I know how cults work. Once it occurred to me that this is where so many of my associates are, mentally, it made everything – the hate, the illogic – come into focus.
On top of all of that, there is no secret that the Marxists have had this as a long -term plan. My wife rolls her eyes when yet another book arrives in the mail from some used-book vendor.
I cannot hardly believe all of this myself, so I looked into Why? and How? I discover these books, and pieces of history, and grab them at a couple dollars at a time.
The entire campaign is there. Ride the Democratic party to promote Marxist ideals: reduce the power of the cultural hegemony of nukelar family, Christianity (and, guilt-by-association, Israel) and commerce.
I have predicted a few social movements to emerge from the “progressive” movement, based on seeing all of this.
A few years ago, it occurred to me that one pillar of the cultural hegemony was still standing: the incest taboo.
I told my wife that, soon, you will see this falling. This was a few years ago.
Sure enough, in recent years, the media have covered stories of some long-separated child and parent somehow meeting, and dating. On these news stories, you see the comments of the general public: awww, they are in love. Let them do their thing.
Now, Flowers in the Attic is out. By my prediction, you will see a lot of advancement on attacking the incest taboo. Add the general lack-of-judgment of Woody Allen’s recent notoriety.
Many have said that pedophilia is coming, and it is pretty much here. We liberals all supported Roman Polanski when the recent kerfluffle arose about him being a pedophile a couple years ago.
Pedophilia is a hard topic for us “democrat” liberals: we are, by our anti-nukelar family/anti-sex-only-in-marriage doctrine, in favor of if-it-feels-good-do-it, yet pedophilia gives us a wonderful angle for destroying a huge bulwark of Christianity: the Catholic Church.
This is a bit of a challenge, just like our challenge dealing with the Jesus-love of our plantation Negroes.
But we will figure it out.
DLPL: Do you find the presence of an American flag offensive? Do you foam at the mouth because it might hypothetically be offensive to some imaginary constituency you must protect? Where did that come from? The U.S. flag offensive?
What could be a more bizarre partisan issue?
The Dems are morphing into a thought-cult. I know it. I have been involved extensively and intimately with my fellow democrats/liberals for decades.
Watch the incest issue over the next two years, and get back to me. I understand this so well that I can predict how it will play out next.
The Dems/liberals have been swayed by a surruptitiously-played-out Marxist end-run for their minds, and the Marxists are winning. They can stay secret by a cult-style thought-structure that disguises their motives by moving the focus onto the “bad guy” – those evil, stingey, bigoted, racist, white, dumb, unthinking, uncaring conservatives.
Oh dear.
Okay cool man, but none of that has anything to do with cults. You’re talking about a loosely bound people who agree with one of the mainstream political parties, it doesn’t fit any of the criteria for people who work with cult survivors and such to classify it as a cult. Your opinion on the Dems is fine, believe what you want. I know plenty of lovely Democrats and plenty of awful ones, they are people like any others.
Of course I don’t find the American flag offensive and I’ve met exactly one liberal who does find it offensive, and he was a drug addict with mental health issues.
And what on God’s green earth do pedophilia and incest have to do with anything? Why do people throw that in everywhere? Do you think it strengthens your argument? Is it a fear tactic to get people to agree with you? It’s not appreciated by child abuse and incest victims, I can tell you that much. The “movement” of sick people who advance pedophilia and incest is very small, mostly comprised of actual people who want to have sex with children and child family members and a few Ivory Tower “academics” who apologize and justify stuff for what seems like a mental exercise. The internet gives them voice and makes them seem more popular, but seeing as how people basically believe in mob justice for child rapists I don’t think we’re in danger of having pedophilia become popular any time soon. There are plenty of parents and decent people who are Democrats who hate child rape and forced incest just as much as any decent conservative, and I am so sick of people using stuff like cults and child abuse to advance your views on politics.
he suggested you wait two years before getting back to him Jack ;-)
I really don’t care what other people do in bed, as long as I don’t have to be involved. As for procreation, I love my sex life, but I love it more when it has purpose. Anything else just seems…substandard.
However, that said, with various countries concerned about declining population, there have been various studies suggesting that people are participating in less sexual activity now than they were twenty years ago–procreative or otherwise. One has to wonder if some of the pro-abort venom results from, um, excess energy? Or possibly a subconscious knowledge that pro-lifers don’t just like babies, but we like living fully! And that leads to greater satisfaction. My vote is that Marcotte is just jealous. ;)
It is an ad hominem to look into someone’s eyes??
Really?
Thought I was sharing an observation.
Oh there is a definite darkness in in the eyes of Carhart, Boyd, Gosnell and the late Tiller. But you wouldn’t know that Reality.
Is Amanda post abortive? Some say yes some say no. IDK all hardened pro aborts have that look about them. I cant even imagine the type of man who would put up with them. And of course pro lifers like sex under the right circumstances but we arent like them where EVERYTHING is about sex.
Hey “reality” and Jack: TheLastDemocrat has a point in his comparison of the democratic party to that of a socialist system. They are very much alike (unions, the collective, etc.). So give him credit for that.
The “cult” may as well be considered when we examine the liberal mind running amok. :) Just kidding….
I agree with Rachel on her summation of Amanda: jealous most definitely!
Could it be that pro-lifers are better at it and that is eating poor Amanda up :)
In The Last Democrat’s post, I do see the analogy between his experience and a cult: debasing and ostracizing anyone who does not believe the collective mind-set, lest that person “pollute” the followers with unacceptable beliefs.
TLD: my parents were “Truman Democrats”, and they saw the same thing you have. They believed the Democratic party, starting with LBJ, recognized the power of keeping people dependent on the government, providing government leaders with tremendous power.
“Hey “reality” and Jack: TheLastDemocrat has a point in his comparison of the democratic party to that of a socialist system. They are very much alike (unions, the collective, etc.). So give him credit for that. ”
I have zero interest in arguing over whether the Democratic party is socialist or not. I just don’t like it when people throw “cult” around when it isn’t applicable. I’ve explained my reasoning behind thinking this is wrong. I also dislike people throwing around pedophilia and incest as if it’s a good way to “one-up” political opponents. That’s what I was arguing against, I don’t really care if he thinks Dems are socialists or whatever.
“In The Last Democrat’s post, I do see the analogy between his experience and a cult: debasing and ostracizing anyone who does not believe the collective mind-set, lest that person “pollute” the followers with unacceptable beliefs.”
I’ve been “ostracized” by Republicans at times, does that mean the GOP is a cult? Of course not. There’s a lot more that goes into a cult than not liking it when people disagree with you, and vilifying your opponent. A lot of what TLD is complaining about Dems can be applied to party line Republicans too. But neither of them are cults. Like I said, some organizations throw off red flags, but all in all “cult” isn’t applicable to either political party and their supporters.
I do love that TLD is complaining about how Dems demonize Christians and conservatives but then he goes on to say that they all want to approve of incest and pedophilia. Lol. Pot and kettle?
Okay, wait, wait hold the press. *TECHNICALLY* there are like 3 fertile days. However, sperm (esp the ones that make girls) live in the body UP TO FIVE DAYS so that’s more like 8. Just saying.
I agree that throwing cult around incorrectly needs to stop. Let’s all calm down and take a deep breath and try and use accurate labels, mkay?
Alright, Ms. Marcotte let’s have a look at your little diatribe:
Alrighty then. So first, how many actual anti-abortion people have you really talked to? And I mean like enter their homes, sit down over a cup of coffee, turn off your filter, and really listen? Never? Hm. Well I’ll tell you.
What we actually do. Oh, you mean like all the glorious sexy rumpus and babies we make? Cause on the whole, pro-lifers tend to have lots of babies and in cause you missed biology (which is seems you have….) sex makes babies. And some of us pro-life women are married to great, egalitarian, respectful prolife men and use contraception and have incredible sex lives and make love and all that. can’t speak for all em, but this pro-life woman is very confident in her sexuality (and has a husband who agrees). So there’s that. moving along….
Um. Who said that?! Cause we actually don’t really care what you do, as others have stated before. And what are these “larger objections?” Because the prolife movement is vast and varied. The people who make it up range from priests to atheists. And the thing that unites us all is that should wee bambino be created, that you would not slay the innocent life.
Whoah there nelly. Who invited the conservatives? Who are we talking about now, the conservatives or the anti abortion activists? Cause like I said earlier…. The activists consist of a myriad of backgrounds, political parties, and religions. So make up your mind.
And yet, oddly, when actual anti abortion activists answer your question and live their lives, it *is* all about life and they really don’t care about what you do in bed or anywhere else. And if you’ve got someone peeping in your windows, for goodness’ sake get a restraining order or something cause that’s a real problem. But most of us really do just want to see innocent lives saved and other people happy.
Sorry for the typos. Offspring 1 is mobile and teething and so he wants to eat everything and then erupt in tears.
Offspring number 1? Do you need to tell us something LibertyBelle? :)
It is an ad hominem to look into someone’s eyes??
Really?
Thought I was sharing an observation.
It’s not often that one sees an attempt at levity from you Carla :-)
I think you are quite aware that the ad hominem is the declaration that the eyes of any pro-choice person pictured here are said to be sad, angry, cold, dark, empty, blah blah blah.
Democratic socialism is one of the best socio-economic political systems “thomas r.”
debasing and ostracizing anyone who does not believe the collective mind-set, lest that person “pollute” the followers with unacceptable beliefs. – now that has a familiar ring to it. Ah yes, now I remember where I observed that happening. One of the reasons why I left.
I don’t think Del’s observation (and Carla’s agreement with Del’s observation) qualifies as an ad hominem. She’s not saying that Marcotte’s argument is invalid because her eyes look angry and sad and empty, or that since Marcotte’s eyes look angry and sad and empty it therefore invalidates her [Marcotte’s] argument. To say either would indeed be an ad hominem, but neither said anything of the kind.
GAH! No. :) It’s just my name for him. He is the first, regardless of if/when we have another. For some reason, I often refer to him in relatively scientific terms. ;)
From merriam-webster:
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
The whole “oo, look at the terrible, evil, dead, empty eyes” thing occurs when photos of pro-choicers are shown. We rarely see comments about the eyes of anti-choicers whose photos appear.
This is done under the auspices of ‘2’ above as it is an attempt to damage the character of the pro-choicer, therefore making what they are saying appear less valid rather than have to dispute it intellectually.
But I think you already knew that ;-)
How is making an observation about one’s physical appearance attempting to damage their character? And where did Del or Carla say that the appearance of her eyes made her argument invalid? Doesn’t fit: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Uhu, yep right. Keep trying. Mmmm…..
Okay, prove me wrong. Where did Del/Carla use the appearance of Marcotte’s eyes to invalidate her argument?
How cute :-)
If you can’t understand the explanation I’ve already given………………….
I love you LB.
Thank you JoAnna.
Look in the eyes of prolifers Reality. You will see life and love and vitality.
Of course it is my opinion based on my own little habit of looking into others eyes. Iknowright??
Democratic socialism is one of the best socio-economic political systems “thomas r.”
No “reality” it is not. Reliance on the government in order for the people in power to amass more power has proven itself to be a disaster. The unions destroy any economic advantage any company may have (GM rings a bell Einstein?). Socialized medicine (exchanges) have not taken off thus this ACA circus is just that. And, is everyone equal under the system you so promote (one of the tenets of socialism)? NO, because that is not possible and never will be. Socialists failed miserably at their marxist ideology and so is that so-called “democratic socialism” an oxymoron (try to run this term by your Congressman and you will be laughed out of their office) HAHA.
LOL I love you too Carla! :)
And for all his ranting and raving and frothing at the mouth about this ad hominem attack, Reality has once more completely missed the boat on the discussion…. *cough* ;)
Did not ”reality” act ad hominem against some commenters on this blog! I can certainly point him to many of his responses, in which he denigrated a commenter based on some type of a characteristic he found flawed in that commenter. He has his favorites he does it to on a weekly basis.
Look in the eyes of prolifers Reality. You will see life and love and vitality. – more often than not. Sometimes I see hatred, guile or naivety.
Of course it is my opinion based on my own little habit of looking into others eyes. – you and me both :-)
On the thread featuring Sally Kohn, Del said I looked at the eyes before I read the quote. Why do pro-aborts always have so much anger and cold-bloodedness that they cannot hide it, even in a publicity photo?
I looked and I saw soft, kind, gentle eyes. As I usually do when I look into the eyes of pro-choicers.
On this thread Del said sad and angry and empty. Which is it? I see perceptive, thoughtful eyes.
my observation is that if people cough during this type of discussion it often means they are choking on their own words ;-)
Did not ”reality” act ad hominem against some commenters on this blog! I can certainly point him to many of his responses,…..He has his favorites he does it to on a weekly basis. – go on then “thomas r.”, give us some examples.