Disgusting, racist, pro-abortion magazine cover
In his Life Links today, Jivin J links to a story that calls an ultrasound a “torture machine” if turned toward abortion-minded mothers to show them their baby.
The Texas Observer calls laws mandating that mothers receive informed consent via ultrasounds (which they do not have to view) “torment.”
All of this hyperbole in the name of giving mothers the freedom to kill their babies.
And its April 2012 magazine cover more than implies a racist, sinister agenda, showing faceless white men up in a dark-skinned woman’s business.
The hypocrisy is appalling. Republican women in the Texas legislature outnumber Democrat women, for starters. Assuming that only white male legislators are pro-life is so sexist.
At any rate, does anyone complain when male legislators like Barack Obama oppose pro-life legislation, or advance the pro-abortion agenda? No. Men are only allowed to hold one ideology.
Speaking of Obama, do you suppose a photo showing black men visually raping a white woman would go unchallenged?
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.
Wait a minute… those blobs along the top of the magazine cover… they look suspiciously like….babies!!!!
To be honest, if you look at the top of the woman’s feet, they are white. Her legs look dark, but that could just be the shadows in the picture. Still, it does push an unfair stereotype of pro-lifers, and if someone isn’t observant, they might miss the white feet, and see a racial message that’s not there. They are trying to make pro-lifers look like monsters and to demonize us. It’s totally unfair. Maybe prayer is the only way to stop it, or at least take away the consequences of it.
Well, would you look at that? Obama’s playing cowboy again. Oh sorry, I meant cowman-child.
ex-Dem. I saw that, which made me think they obviously colorized the woman’s legs. Shadows aren’t causing the brown-ness.
Didn’t hear them complaining when nine men decided Roe v Wade. No complaints from them about Norma McCorvey’s perjured rape testimony during Roe V Wade either. SMH.
Looks like a bunch of abortionists standing around another during a procedure down in the Houston Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.
So their politics have always been personal.
And deadly.
Just ask Barack.
That cover screams poor taste.
..and where does anyone use a brown covering sheet? I’ve seen white or teal, but cocoa??? I think it adds to the deliberate confusion. It reminds me of that crazy movie about the twins where they wore scarlet red scrubs. Eww.
Still, those blobs above them look human…
And its April 2012 magazine cover more than implies a racist, sinister agenda, showing faceless white men up in a dark-skinned woman’s business.
Just what politicians are really pushing that agenda, other than white men? That’s pretty much the deal.
The left is drifting further and further away from meaningful dialog. It is mainly obfuscation, lies, and personal destruction. They look not for truth but for an angle to advance their propaganda. Thus they are taking themselves out of the realm of serious scholarship and are a drag on the honorable profession of journalism.
People are awakening to this more every day. Just today the revelation that NBC doctored the story on the tragic Florida killing is a glaring example that can be added to the New York Times and Washington Post’s reporters of recent years who were discovered to have fabricated entirely false stories. None of these things happen in a vacuum but rather point to a culture of expediency and lies as these organs seek at any cost to advance their counter-cultural agenda.
Right, Doug. The only politicians that support these things are men. Some of them just happen to have breasts. And only politicians support restrictions on abortion, not any of their constituents.
Navi: The only politicians that support these things are men.
Didn’t say that. I submit that you know darn well what I mean. I also submit that the image of a bunch of old white guys “deeming what is right for women” is definitely there, and an operative thing in the country’s current socio-political milieu, and a doggone big factor in the upcoming election.
Doug: Just what politicians are really pushing that agenda, other than white men?
As you were saying?
The perception is there, sure, but it’s still a ridiculous distortion regardless of how many people you can trick into believing it.
Doug, Navi may know darn well what you mean but I don’t. Just because the image is there doesn’t mean there’s an ounce of truth to it.
Note that I typed my 7:46 comment before seeing Navi’s 7:42 comment.
Navi: The perception is there, sure, but it’s still a ridiculous distortion regardless of how many people you can trick into believing it.
No, not a “ridiculous distortion” – rather, it’s what people have seen time and time again. Take away the white, male conservative politicians, and the agenda to take away the freedom that women have in the matter of legal abortion suffers a more-than-mortal blow.
Yes, let’s just completely disregard all the male prochoice politicians, and the fact that the abortion industry is male dominated. Anything to perpetuate the ‘women as victims’ stereotype. Let’s infantilize womanhood even more, so women can continue to act like children while throwing their own children under the bus. In other words, business as usual as it’s been done for the last 40 years. If it’s all good ole boy white men passing prolife legislation, then its all good ole boy white men passing prochoice legislation, which passes far more often than prolife legislation does. (Nevermind all the prochoice female politicians, right?) But of course that’s not convenient when flipping the race card and the victim card in order to make your ‘war on women’ case. Morons.
Jerry: AMEN.
I have a friend whose legs look exactly like the woman’s legs on this magazine cover. She’s white. She just happens to have naturally tan skin.
The sheet covering her is pink. It’s just dimly lit from the wrong angle. Those sheets are ubiquitous at gynecologists’ offices.
I think this cover wouldn’t be any LESS disgusting if it featured a woman politician posed between the woman’s legs. It’s disgusting because it shows someone between a woman’s legs who is NOT A DOCTOR. Gender and race don’t even factor into it. Politicians don’t belong between women’s legs. Period.
Doug, your objection only makes sense if white males are the only ones allowed to vote. Last time I checked women (and men of other colors) are allowed to vote as well. I fact I got my voters registration card update just the other day. Which means, unless you think all those mean white men locked the women up in boxes on election day, those elected officials, regardless of color, age, sex, or political leanings are an accurate representation of the spectrum of people in their districts. Each of those ‘white male’ Representatives *represent* men and women of all colors, just like each white female, black male, or yellow female also represents men and women of all color. Since sufferage passed no male has ever been elected to public office without representing female voters as well. It’s not white male legislators pushing a pro-life agenda, it’s men and women of all colors speaking through their properly elected representatives.
And also never mind, Doug, that the VAST majority of Pro-Lifers here AT THIS SITE are female. How long have you been coming here, Doug? How many years have you been watching the female Pro-Life base here grow? Please do tell. Moron.
Amen Jespren! All those white male politicians could not continue to fight for pro-life laws if they were not backed by us pro-life women (and men) of all colors.
And also never mind, Doug, that the VAST majority of Pro-Lifers here AT THIS SITE are female. How long have you been coming here, Doug? How many years have you been watching the female Pro-Life base here grow? Please do tell. Moron.
X, pfft…. what does that have to do with anything? ;) :P
It’s disgusting because it shows someone between a woman’s legs who is NOT A DOCTOR. Gender and race don’t even factor into it. Politicians don’t belong between women’s legs. Period.
None of these bills actually put politicians between women’s legs. But it’s good to see that you’d at least oppose laws allowing non-doctors to perform abortions. I’m not sure if Planned Parenthood of Arizona would have your back though.
This cover is very offensive to me. LL
It’s disgusting because it shows someone between a woman’s legs who is NOT A DOCTOR. Gender and race don’t even factor into it. Politicians don’t belong between women’s legs. Period.
I agree. It would not have to be male, white politicians. However, that is the case we have – when we talk about the “Texas lawmakers,” that’s exactly what we have. They are the ones interfering with the individual choice of women.
Most Texas lawmakers are white men. Portraying that fact accurately is not racist or sexist.
MPCQ 5:50PM
Amen to that! No complaints either when white men support abortion or perform them and profit very well from them.
reality says:
Most Texas lawmakers are white men. Portraying that fact accurately is not racist or sexist.
Right – why kid ourselves? That is what’s going on.
law: “Politicians don’t belong between women’s legs. Period.”
I agree that no sex would be a wonderful punishment for our political class. That, and the gene pool would be better off.
(hey, just trying to respond in kind to silly remarks) ;-)
Doug, and all who wish to frame this as men attacking women’s rights… Don’t females make up half the Republican votes? They did the last time I checked. The problem of women not being elected to higher office is a separate problem, but you know if female pro-lifers are put into office (and hopefully will be soon) they will enact the same type of legislation. Talking about this impression of male white conservatives picking on women is disingenuous.
Most Texas lawmakers are white men. Portraying that fact accurately is not racist or sexist.
Unless male Texas lawmakers are doing abortions now too the photo is a bit inaccurate, doncha think?
I’m not really sure this photo is trying to portray white Texan lawmakers anyway, reality. Maybe it’s trying to portray abortionists as suit-wearing cowboys.
I think the proaborts believe if they give their kill mill a theme, maybe we simpleton prolifers won’t think abortion is so bad anymore. You guys could have the Tie-wearing Cowboy Clinic and the Planned Policehood and the Mailman Dead Deliverers and Done Baking Now Clinic.
Proaborts are no longer just losing it, they done lost it with this one.
“Politicians don’t belong between women’s legs. Period.”
Actually, it’s OK with most people if the politician is married to the woman. Otherwise,
go tell it to Bill Clinton, et al.
Serial child-killers don’t belong between women’s legs, either…or politicians who support them, whether the politicians fathered the “inconvenient” children or not.
Jack, the fact is that the Republican lawmakers at hand in Texas really are mostly white guys. I never said that no other people are involved. From the magazine cover – it’d be (much ;)) less accurate to have minority women, for example, presented as they who are interposing themselves among women making individual choices.
“the image of a bunch of old white guys “deeming what is right for women” is definitely there, and an operative thing in the country’s current socio-political milieu, and a doggone big factor in the upcoming election.”
I think that’s accurate, and the Texas deal is part-and-parcel of it not just being Republicans, but Republicans increasingly influenced by the religious-zealot fringe, including men who really are hardly concerned with “women’s rights,” at all. Some of these guys come at it from a religious perspective that, shall we say, truly leaves a good bit to be desired as far as women’s rights.
It’s like the House committee that was convened to decide if the contraceptive mandate violated religious freedom. Not one woman included. Now of course this is not to say that nobody other than “ol’ white dudes” feel a certain way. There still is a common feeling of “C’mon, man….” (so to speak).
There was a bill in the US Senate that would have allowed religiously-affiliated employers to deny *any medical care* (not just contraception) to employees, should they say it violated their religious beliefs. It was voted down, but again – definitely a “C’mon man…” factor at work.
If there was something comparable as far as women legislators trying to affect men’s choices, can you imagine what the “old boys” would be saying about it? ;)
This isn’t about white male politicians picking on women. This is about men and WOMEN standing up for CHILDREN.
For years you pro-aborts have been telling us that our photos of aborted children are fake, that fetuses are merely unrecognizable blobs or blood clots and that there is nothing remotely living or human about them. Now all the sudden seeing these non-living, non-human blobs on an ultrasound screen is akin to “torture” and “torment” and “rape”. HUH? Good grief you crazies cannot have it both ways! Is it a blob or not?
law 8:20PM
“Politicians don’t belong between women’s legs. Period”
LOLLLLLL. Too funny. Well its never stopped them!
It’s like the House committee that was convened to decide if the contraceptive mandate violated religious freedom. Not one woman included. Now of course this is not to say that nobody other than “ol’ white dudes” feel a certain way. There still is a common feeling of “C’mon, man….” (so to speak).
Oh, look, Doug is regurgitating liberal media lies. Why am I not surprised by this? Now sit! Roll over! Good boy!
Doug, the contraceptive mandate panel witnesses included 2 females who were opposed to the mandate. They were on the second panel. Sorry if you were duped by a Dem photo op.
“Politicians don’t belong between women’s legs. Period”
Mary: LOLLLLLL. Too funny. Well its never stopped them!
:) Mary :P
X: Doug, the contraceptive mandate panel witnesses included 2 females who were opposed to the mandate. They were on the second panel.
X, I was talking about the committee itself, and the “committee that was convened”, as I said, was all-male, no?
Sydney M has it right:
This isn’t about white male politicians picking on women. This is about men and WOMEN standing up for CHILDREN.
Thank you Sydney for a moment of clarity and distilling the matter to its essence.
well, actually, since it’s about the ultrasound law, it’s about men and women sticking up for children and women. Just ask Carla.
What is wrong with being white AND male anyway? Geez. Give it a rest.
Texas Hal: If it isn’t self-evident to us, I guess that means we’re even worse than they thought. ;-)
@Texas Hal
“What is wrong with being white AND male anyway?”
Well if you don’t know i’m certainly not going to tell you! LOL
Calling abortion a women’s most difficult decision is ludicrous. What other murder is called a difficult decision. Abortion is a heinous crime against unborn children that is destroying the very foundation of our nation.
In the legislatures of the states and the nation, we are rapidly replacing the old pro-life men and the old pro-abortion men and women (mostly men) with young, pro-life women and men (mostly women).
Which makes sense, since young people and especially young women are the demographic most injured by abortion.
None of this is relevant to the issue. Abortion exploits women and kills children, and this is true no matter whom we send to our legislatures.
The liberal spin is that “Republican extremists in the legislature” are responsible for the pro-life legislation. Truth is, pro-life voters are responsible. We are the majority, and we gave our representatives this job to do. We voters are pleased. We are looking forward to November.
“ X, I was talking about the committee itself, and the “committee that was convened”, as I said, was all-male, no?”
No. It was just that not all the people could sit at the same table at the same time. So, they did it in shifts. Does there have to be an absolute quota of people by race, gender, whatever, in every group of people that has more than one person in it?
It is the endless ad hominem. Content, reason, arguments don’t matter. All that matters is the mascot that is sent up there to represent the faction. So, every organization needs to be on notice to have a stable of mascots to send as reps or they will be derided as being too male, too female, too white, too black, too rich, too poor and therefore not an appropriate representative of the organization to articulate content, reason and arguments.
What Hippie just said!!
People are not tokens.
Hippie: No. It was just that not all the people could sit at the same table at the same time. So, they did it in shifts. Does there have to be an absolute quota of people by race, gender, whatever, in every group of people that has more than one person in it?
Hippie, if there were indeed women on the committee, then I was wrong and I stand corrected. And of course there does not have to be a quota. However, the “paternalistic” aspect of men deciding things for women does have quite a bit of application.
____
It is the endless ad hominem. Content, reason, arguments don’t matter. All that matters is the mascot that is sent up there to represent the faction. So, every organization needs to be on notice to have a stable of mascots to send as reps or they will be derided as being too male, too female, too white, too black, too rich, too poor and therefore not an appropriate representative of the organization to articulate content, reason and arguments.
The “content” really is affected by “the good old boys club,” so to speak. I agree that the “mascot representation” is rather silly, but – as with the magazine cover in question – it’d be a lot sillier to portray a woman of west indian origin, for example, versus a guy in a cowboy hat. There *are* men in politics that take a fairly extreme view on women’s rights, perhaps from a “biblical” perspective.
Why do you even come here, Doug, if we’re all just “good old boys” extremist club members trying to take away “women’s rights” because doing so is “biblical”? I mean, the strawman effigy you’ve erected here of us is surely adequate enough to invalidate anything we say, so why bother coming here and conversing with any of us further, since you know who we are and why we do what we do so well-even better than we do ourselves?
*sick of Doug*
hippie, that was so well said. LOL
My computer’s clipboard has trafficked in some banal stuff lately, so permit me to wake it up with a moment’s homage:
All that matters is the mascot that is sent up there to represent the faction. So, every organization needs to be on notice to have a stable of mascots to send as reps or they will be derided as being too male, too female, too white, too black, too rich, too poor and therefore not an appropriate representative of the organization to articulate content, reason and arguments.
Identity politics requires it. Whether it’s a Saturday morning cartoon whose cast needs to have someone of every color and a wheelchair, or whether it’s a caucus of overt racial composition in Congress, ya gotta have the optics.
If I assert that I’d be OK with a competent gay black female Wiccan representing my straight white male Christian self in Congress, I’d be met with nods of approval that I’d met a minimum standard of tolerance. Well and good. But let anyone hint that a district loaded with gay black female Wiccans could be well-represented by anyone lacking that demographic jumble, and such a hint would have to spar with charges of homophobic racist patriarchal theocratic fascism. In fact, I’ll assert that having the proper demographic credentials would get a hair-brained lunatic voted into office by those in thrall to identity politics, well ahead of someone superlatively competent who happened to lack them.
I suspect there’s a good measure of romantic delusion behind such weird inconsistencies. Persecuted people are somehow better, as people. Those whose race once persecuted others bears a mark of Cain. Scales once tipped unfairly must not be leveled — they must be tipped contrary, even if everyone who cares has died off. And finally, teeth-gnashing histrionics must be treated as if it were a study in self-controlled moderation. If you express that the lady doth protest too much, you’re a bigoted troglodyte.
Something like that.
Doug, I’m disappointed in you. You were the only prochoicer on this board I had any respect for, as you seemed to trade in arguments as opposed to insults. But this ad hominem, men controlling women nonsense puts you right down to the level of the rest of them. By the way, identity politics is stupid. (But I,m a white heterosexual male, so of course I would say that :) )
X: Why do you even come here, Doug, if we’re all just “good old boys” extremist club members trying to take away “women’s rights” because doing so is “biblical”?
1.) I used to go to Ernie’s Great Big Pro-Life Jamboree, but most were there just to see what other people were wearing.
2.) As a kid in the 1960s, I wasn’t allowed to go to websites, period.
3.) Sometimes, late at night, Hans will break out the tequila.
X, I didn’t say anything about “you all” as in pro-lifers at Jill’s site. I didn’t generalize about politicians that way, either – I said, “There *are* men in politics that take a fairly extreme view on women’s rights, perhaps from a “biblical” perspective.”
That is true – there are some guys in politics who have ideas about women being “submissive,” ideas that I imagine you too would have a problem with. I didn’t say all pro-life politicians were like that, nor that all Republicans or Republican male politicians are like that.
As far as Texas politicians, they do tend to be heavily male and white, and as said before, if “somebody” is going to be put on the magazine cover, nobody remotely makes as much sense as a white guy.
In my very first post on this thread, I said, “Just what politicians are really pushing that agenda, other than white men? That’s pretty much the deal.” I asked the question – if people think that “white men” shouldn’t be shown thusly, then who should, in Texas? As for it being “pretty much the deal” as far as white male politicians in Texas, I think that’s easy to see for anybody.
JDC: Doug, I’m disappointed in you. You were the only prochoicer on this board I had any respect for, as you seemed to trade in arguments as opposed to insults.
Well, JDC, can’t win ’em all… ;)
____
But this ad hominem, men controlling women nonsense puts you right down to the level of the rest of them.
Where do you see me actually engaging in ad hominems? I’ve been careful not to generalize incorrectly. If you want ad hominems, there is plenty of little-league pro-lifer name-calling in this thread and others.
____
By the way, identity politics is stupid. (But I,m a white heterosexual male, so of course I would say that )
Ha! :) I hear you – but if the shoe fits…. I’m saying that if we are talking about “Texas lawmakers,” then one could do a lot worse than having a guy in a cowboy hat and/or white guys being represented.
Doug, the problem comes from deliberately painting pro-life in a way that isn’t reflective of the reality of the movement. Of course it’s correct that most Texas lawmakers are rich white males, most politicians in general are. Problems with gender representation in politics isn’t limited to the right wing, though.
I think it is disingenuous to act as the pro-life laws are being pushed on an unwilling populace by teh evil white dudes, when a majority of the state (half of the voters being female, and some being minorities) put them in office with the expectation of getting these type of laws passed. The “white guys” in office are doing what the people who put them in office hired them to do. And I am completely sure that people like talking about a gender war rather than realizing just how many women agree with these guys, it’s much more sensational to paint it that way.
Jack, point taken, but I’ve said nothing to the effect that there aren’t plenty of pro-lifers in Texas who aren’t white males. I fully grant you that there are.
Yet when it comes to intruding on a woman’s personal decision, Texas lawmakers seem quite willing to do it, and the majority of them are white guys. I’m going with the magazine cover and thinking that the guy in the cowboy hat makes as much sense or more than anything else. Not saying that people shouldn’t be offended, either – that’s a different deal.
On an individual basis, I submit that there are indeed certain white male politicians in Texas (and elsewhere) that do see women as second-class citizens to some extent. There is an element of that at work in “conservative politics,” even today. Not to say that “all male Texas pols are that way,” nor that said sentiment is the prime mover behind the current doings in Texas, but it’s also not like it “is never present.”
Also have never said anything like “gender war.” Again – I’m going with the magazine cover. If it’s going to be anybody, the guy in the cowboy hat fits pretty well.
X: Why do you even come here, Doug
4.) Because some day, perhaps Zeke 13:19 will return. You gotta see this dude, X.
Doug, having thought about my above comment, I would like to apologize for being such a jerk. I actually rather enjoy reading your comments. Oh well, at least you seem to have a sense of humor about it. So anyway, who’s this Zeke 13:19?
Bah. Doug’s back to being the slinky weasel, “Well, I know I’m generalizing, but I’ll try and leave myself enough wiggle room so that when you try to call me on it, I’ll back off a little bit, but I’ll still essentially be unfairly generalizing.” Whatever. This is what happens whenever you get backed into a corner. It gets old.
That is true – there are some guys in politics who have ideas about women being “submissive,” ideas that I imagine you too would have a problem with. I didn’t say all pro-life politicians were like that, nor that all Republicans or Republican male politicians are like that.
If they’re there, I haven’t encountered them. I’ve heard from leftist lawmakers that because I’m Pro-Life, I don’t deserve Constitutional protections, but I’ve never heard anything remotely close to that from my side of the fence, and I really think they would’ve told me by now, since I’m pretty outspoken. Do you tweet much, Doug? I do. I interact with A. LOT. of conservatives on a daily basis, and NONE have EVER told me the kinda b.s. you’re pushing here. You might be generalizing, but in my opinion, from what I have seen as a well-followed and highly outspoken conservative woman among quite a few other well-followed and highly outspoken conservative women, your generalization just doesn’t hold.
Yeah, Doug. Generalizing much? This business about white male legislators intruding on women is really getting old. More than half the voters are female. Texas is not out of line with the rest of the country in having around 20% female legislators.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/html/leg/features/0304_01/gender.html
What else is getting old is the need for chivalry on your part, being the white knight swooping in to fight for women’s rights.
“Come on, man!” You’re all hat and no cattle! :) Now tell all your little Dougies - er, I mean dogies, they’re lucky we don’t have an unlike option and ride on out of this thread! ;)
What else is getting old is the need for chivalry on your part, being the white knight swooping in to fight for women’s rights.
TELL ME ABOUT IT, HANS.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again-Doug, please don’t try and do me any favors. C’mon, man!
xalisae,
I’d be too busy getting out of your way to have any thoughts of chivalry! ;)
Doug’s cowardice prevents him from doing more than coming here and talking about “the vast majority, some, most, all” in regards to women and abortion. He is comfortable speaking in his little Doug circles. blah blah blah
Doubt if he would ever offer REAL help and support and encouragement to a young pregnant woman that didn’t want an abortion.
He might offer her a ride to PP though.
This business about white male legislators intruding on women is really getting old.
Agreed. Most of these white male prolife legislators are married and I’ve always said behind a good man is a better woman! These guys didn’t get where they are without some strong supporters, Doug. Starting with their families.
Prolife women – the silent majority.
JDC: Doug, having thought about my above comment, I would like to apologize for being such a jerk. I actually rather enjoy reading your comments. Oh well, at least you seem to have a sense of humor about it. So anyway, who’s this Zeke 13:19?
JDC, no problem. Senses of humor are good, definitely. I’d never think you were a “jerk” – even though I’m rather an “opponent” of pro-lifers here. I don’t think of anybody that’s posting here now as a jerk.
Ol’ Zeke could be a jerk – he was hardcore about pseudo-biblical stuff re men’s superiority to women.
X: Bah. Doug’s back to being the slinky weasel, “Well, I know I’m generalizing, but I’ll try and leave myself enough wiggle room so that when you try to call me on it, I’ll back off a little bit, but I’ll still essentially be unfairly generalizing.” Whatever. This is what happens whenever you get backed into a corner. It gets old.
Oh good grief, X. Is it really “ad hominem” or not? Yeah, I said I’ve been careful not to generalize incorrectly. For Pete’s sake – we see such all the time from pro-lifers, generalizing from the particular, all manner of other logical fallacies, etc.
Look at your post from April 5, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Why do you even come here, Doug, if we’re all just “good old boys” extremist club members trying to take away “women’s rights” because doing so is “biblical”? I mean, the strawman effigy you’ve erected here of us
Do you see what you did? *You’re* the one conjuring up a strawman argument. I never said anything about “you all.” Texas politicians are not the same as the people on Jill’s site, but you seem to neglect that, and moreover, you’re totally putting words in my mouth.
Hans: Yeah, Doug. Generalizing much? This business about white male legislators intruding on women is really getting old. More than half the voters are female. Texas is not out of line with the rest of the country in having around 20% female legislators.
Hans, generalizing but not incorrectly. If the Presidential election were held tomorrow, Romney loses because of those female voters you mention. Women’s rights are definitely part of the mix.
As for the Texas legislators specifically, I understand that the magazine cover is offensive to a lot of people. Still, that is a different thing, and as I said before: if “somebody” is going to be put on the magazine cover, nobody remotely makes as much sense as a white guy.
____
What else is getting old is the need for chivalry on your part, being the white knight swooping in to fight for women’s rights.
I don’t feel like that, Hans. I’m pointing out that for all the “uproar” over the magazine cover, it makes a pretty good point. If we are really just speculating about Democrats and Republicans,
____
Come on, man!” You’re all hat and no cattle! Now tell all your little Dougies - er, I mean dogies, they’re lucky we don’t have an unlike option and ride on out of this thread!
:P Pretty good there for laughs. But as for “no cattle” – hey, I make more effort to identify what is true for all of us, rather than just stating or proceeding from personal beliefs, than anybody else on the site. My opinion.
X: I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again-Doug, please don’t try and do me any favors. C’mon, man!
X, I don’t think I have to do you any favors. You can take care of yourself. ;)
You’ve got the legal right to do what you want to do, should you become pregnant. Here’s hoping that women in the US retain that right.
Carla: Doug’s cowardice prevents him from doing more than coming here and talking about “the vast majority, some, most, all” in regards to women and abortion. He is comfortable speaking in his little Doug circles. blah blah blah
Carla, I’ve never wished you anything but happiness.
Praxedes: Most of these white male prolife legislators are married and I’ve always said behind a good man is a better woman! These guys didn’t get where they are without some strong supporters, Doug. Starting with their families.
Okay, but again – if we’re going to have somebody on the magazine cover, who better than – considering it’s Texas – a guy in a cowboy hat?
____
Prolife women – the silent majority.
Do you really believe that? Here too – again – if the election were held tomorrow, Obama wins, and this is because of women. I wish there was a financially conservative candidate who didn’t come with all the baggage attached by the religious fringe.
I wish there was a financially conservative candidate who didn’t come with all the baggage of endorsing gross human rights violations like abortion. OH, WAITAMINUTE…
Doug: I wish there was a financially conservative candidate who didn’t come with all the baggage attached by the religious fringe. [emphasis added]
There you go again. Generalizing incorrectly…
Doug,
Come over from the dark side. Stop being as divisive as our president. Instead of being so concerned about “women’s rights”, why don’t you step back qnd consider the big picture?
Be for female rights. That means the life of a baby girl trumps her mother’s comfort level. Step back a little farther and champion human rights, and consider the male babies and those fathers who care about their offspring.
That’s the humane outlook on life. Would that you could see that.
Doug: “I wish there was a financially conservative candidate who didn’t come with all the baggage attached by the religious fringe.” [emphasis added]
Navi: There you go again. Generalizing incorrectly…
Ahem – that’s my own personal opinion. Hardly “generalizing.”
Hans: That’s the humane outlook on life. Would that you could see that.
I realize you do, Hans. But not everybody has that outlook, nor is it necessarily the more “humane.” Consider denying a legal abortion to a pregnant woman who wants one, and who does not agree with how you feel. I can see vastly more sadness there, vastly more “wrong,” than may be involved in a great number of abortions, and more than may be involved in a great number of miscarriages – where not only is there no notice on the part of the unborn, but perhaps not on the part of any of the conscious “us” either.
Oh yeah. I’m sure that mother who is “denied an abortion” will be very, very sad that her child is alive and playing at her feet or those of an adoptive mother. How tragic. Just as sad as a miscarriage. Yeah, right.
Oh yeah. I’m sure that mother who is “denied an abortion” will be very, very sad that her child is alive and playing at her feet or those of an adoptive mother. How tragic. Just as sad as a miscarriage. Yeah, right.
Didn’t say that, Hans.