My latest photo essay is now up at zombietime:

Walk for Life 2013 vs. Roe v. Wade 40th Anniversary

(Also cross-posted at PJMedia.)

If you’d like to comment on the essay, you can do so here.

A sample video from the action, to pique your interest:

Get your vaginal probe out of my vagina!
Get your crucifix out of my uterus!
Oh yeah, the truth hurts!
What are you teaching your little children? How to make women DIE???
Get your crucifix out of my uterus!
Get your crucifix out of my uterus!
Get your crucifix out of my uterus!
Get your vaginal probe out of my vagina!
Get your crucifix out of my vagina!
Get your vaginal probe out of my vagina!
That’s disgusting! What are you looking around for?
Vaginas!
Uteruses!
Get your crucifix out of my vagina!
Get your crucifix out of my vagina.
Get your crucifix out of my uterus!
Get your vaginal probe out of my vagina!
Get your vaginal probe out of my vagina!
Get the cross out of my…uterus.
Get your crucifix out of my uterus!
Oh, a t-shirt: We wouldn’t want you to learn anything!
Vaginal probes out of my vagina!
Get your crucifix out of my uterus!

32 Responses to “Walk for Life 2013 vs. Roe v. Wade 40th Anniversary”

  1. 1Scott on Jan 30, 2013 at 5:42 pm:

    The photographs of the overwhelmingly large pro life crowd in liberal San Fran is encouraging. It is fascinating to me that the braying from the left is always about getting things out of a woman’s vagina or uterus. Ironically, the trouble starts when they put a penis in their vagina! Hey, why can’t pro-choice women control themselves and ensure protection or simply have enough self esteem to say “no” to a man’s sexual advances so the need for abortion evaporates? Of course, most of these protestors want to attribute abortion to extreme circumstances. I guess we are all to believe that all women having safe, legal abortions did so because they were raped. Sadly, pro-choice protests like these devolve into feminist statements of empowerment, similar to Slutwalk. Just look to big vagina costumes four evidence!

    I do like those pro-choice signs that put abortion into terms the idiot left can understand: “Pretend I’m a tree”. Heh. So true that a radical leftist values a tree more than a fellow human. How inhumane!

    Lastly, Zombie is so right about the reasons for being against R v W. A court decision isn’t a law. It’s interpretation of law. Therefore, unenforceable! It’s the madness of today’s legal population that frustrates the conservative community. Clearly, John Roberts’ decision to choose one Constitutional provision over another to uphold Obamacare is yet another example of lawyers overstepping their boundaries. The founders weep.

      

  2. 2germaninspain on Feb 1, 2013 at 2:46 am:

    I missed both sides asking to prevent abortions, that is, asking for better sexual education at school and easy access to anticonceptives.
    If abortion is the last (desperate) resort when it´s already too late, a responsible sex life is the first line of defence (also concerning STD´s, even if this point does not fit the discussion), something both groups failed miserably to point out and where, in my opinion, the discussion should start.

      

  3. 3Scott on Feb 1, 2013 at 4:50 pm:

    The left is not interested in discussing the merits of preserving children in utero. Hence their argument about it being the “woman’s right to choose”. Notice both man and child are left out of that choice, and if you question it, you are immediately labeled a misogynist.

    Further, the left (and in particular the legal community at large) believes that they are intellectually superior to all others, and therefore must be the “responsible” ones who have control. By keeping abortion cheap (subsidized), widely available, and frequent, they are able to eliminate “undesirables” in our society. Note that a disproportionate number of black children are terminated as compared with whites. The left is very much a proponent of genocide. See John Holdren for evidence, as chronicled by Zombie in the past.

    Rational discussion between left and right is purposely being undermined as manipulation takes over both sides…the left has done this better than the right, so much so that the reason why we have an Obama presidency is because of the color of his skin, and not the content of his character. This is a 180 degree turnabout from Dr. Martin Luther King’s Civil Rights speeches. For example, if you dared vote against Obama on principle, you were labeled a racist, which is manipulation. Obama won because white people didn’t want to be racist. They voted for the black guy.

    Today’s left removes responsibility with regularity from almost any action and displaces individual liberty with government control in the name of “the greater good”. Again, we individuals are not to be trusted because we are stupid, and the leftist lawyers know what’s best for the rest of us. Note how more leftists today are coming out and saying “why do we have to follow the Constitution anyway? It was written by old, dead, white rich guys and isn’t relevant anymore”. The Constitution allows individual liberty and assures our rights. Today’s leftists are picking those rights off one by one, including John Robert’s clear usurpation of the Constitution when he chose to recognize Congress’s right to levy taxes over the Commerce clause, which prevents the government or a private entity from forcing citizens to buy a product. Weapons bans, Obamacare, and more are the new standard by which we are being controlled.

    Americans are unable to carry on civil conversations when they are on opposite political sides by design. It is a shame, but all of us are sacrificing our freedom for intellectual poverty. Abstain from sex to prevent unwanted pregnancy? What an antiquated idea, sir! It was probably thought up by some old, dead, rich white guy who doesn’t matter any more! Government funded contraception and abortions for everyone!!!!

      

  4. 4ReligiousRightareWRONG!! on Feb 2, 2013 at 11:05 pm:

    The Religious Right are a group of self-righteous hypocrites who have no regard for anybody outside of their narrow-minded cult. Most claim to be Christians, but actually live very hypocritical lifestyles. They feel by opposing abortion, they they are doing something special for Christ. Yet, in reality, they are sinning in every other area of their lives. The Religious Right are Wrong!!! And they are nothing more than a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites!!

      

  5. 5PROCHOICE!! on Feb 2, 2013 at 11:08 pm:

    It is a woman’s choice to do with her body as she pleases. Religious Nutcases do not have the right to impose their stinking values upon anybody else.

      

  6. 6Army Veteran on Feb 2, 2013 at 11:14 pm:

    As an Army Veteran, I fought for this great country that we all live in. What makes this country great is the freedom that we have and that includes freedom of choice. For those who do not agree with the freedom of choice that this country offers, THEN PLEASE MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY!! Good Riddance and take your hate with you!!

      

  7. 7zombie on Feb 3, 2013 at 2:08 am:

    Comments #4-#6 were all written by the same person with the same IP address, in case that wasn’t obvious.

    The comical attempt at mobyism in comment #6 is pretty funny too. Veteran. Yeah, right.

      

  8. 8Scott on Feb 3, 2013 at 12:17 pm:

    All of that is particularly humorous given that I am an agnostic. These comments are another example of the intolerance by the left. They are so hate-filled and their world view is so distorted, they cannot imagine someone who is a-religious might make a case for being pro-life.

    Talk about hypocrisy!!!

      

  9. 9Luctor on Feb 7, 2013 at 5:34 pm:

    “It is a woman’s choice to do with her body as she pleases” is probably most retarded argument for abortion, and prime example of sophism. First of all, woman indeed have right to choose what to do with her body. However, embryo is not the same thing as women’s body. The thing is that embryo have different DNA from the women’s body, and represent combination of both mother’s and father’s DNA, thus representing unique DNA combination. Therefore, embryo (or unborn baby) is not the same thing as women’s body, but different and unique human organism, connected to her body. Second, the fact that this different organism is connected to women’s body, and dependent of her, does not change the fact that it is not the same thing as her body. Third, unlike parasites, who have different DNA from humans, embryo have human DNA (not identical with mother’s), and therefore represents human life. Elimination of unique human life is attack on basic human right, right to live. Perhaps embryo is not sapient, but it is human nevertheless. Retarded persons are not sapient as well, but killing them is indeed a crime, because this is attack on human life. Killing unborn babies under pretext of “women’s rights” is prime example of propaganda spin and also a fine example of bad argument. Pro abortion crowd is actually demanding suppression of basic human right (right to live) under pretext of not so basic human right (freedom of choice). But our freedoms have restrictions, and those restrictions are rights of other human beings. If animals have rights, than unborn human beings certainly have rights. P.S. Sorry if my English (grammar) is not so perfect, but I’m not an native English speaker. Interesting blog, by the way. Cheers.

      

  10. 10rktman on Feb 10, 2013 at 9:34 am:

    Zomb. Thanks for the photo essay. I was offended at one point when you mentioned Volvo drivers and coexist bumper stickers. We have a Volvo and, if anything, it would have an NRA sticker on it. I am intolerant of intolerance and don’t want to be stereo-typed. Keep up the good work. Oh, we are pro-life btw.

      

  11. 11Big Mouth on Feb 12, 2013 at 2:35 pm:

    Just more examples of how the left hates Christianity not that I am overly religious but the first swipes i ever heard from the left against Christianity was the “Religious Reich” and “keep your rosaries out of my ovaries.”

      

  12. 12Scott on Feb 12, 2013 at 5:35 pm:

    Here is one way to put the left’s rage into perspective. Below is a modified version of our deranged friend’s commentary:

    The irrational left are a group of self-righteous hypocrites who have no regard for anybody outside their own narrow-minded cult. Most claim to be compassionate, but lead very hypocritical lifestyles. They feel that by supporting abortion, they are doing something special for women. Yet in reality they are sinning in every other area of their lives. The irrational left are wrong!!! And they are nothing more than a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites!!!

    It would be a relief if any of these people could put their need for butchering a child into a rational argument. The trouble is, they cannot, so they pull a knee-jerk, like so many of them do, on so many subjects. “Global Warming is a farce” “What? So you want mankind to die in a giant ball of fire?” “We are spending too much on entitlement programs”. “What? So you want to throw grandma from the cliff?” “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” “You pro-gun freaks just want to kill black people!” And so on. It never stops. They just don’t have a handle on reality. I think the drugs melted their brains at some point. That is certainly true of our Vice President.

      

  13. 13Andre Maunsell on Feb 17, 2013 at 6:51 pm:

    Scott, it is the drugs they are on.

      

  14. 14Fizziks on Feb 18, 2013 at 4:21 pm:

    I think that your “states rights” conception of this issue is a total cop out.

    Either you think that people should have autonomy on how to lead their lives, and therefore abortion, birth control, and related matters should all be legal and are nobody’s business but the individual involved. Or you believe that government should be a tool of the kind of social engineering that religious traditionalists and authoritarians prefer. The former results in a pro-choice viewpoint, while the later results in a “pro-life” one. Period.

    I think that the reason that you and other conservatives take the “states rights” cop out is because you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you take the side of freedom and autonomy and declare that you want abortion to be legal, you alienate the authoritarian religious fundamentalists that you rely on for votes. If you take the side of those cultural authoritarians and declare that you want abortion to be illegal, you are starkly revealing the central hypocrisy about modern American conservatism – the claim of favoring “small” government while at the same time advocating for government to intervene in peoples’ most private lives and situations.

    So what do you do? You just punt on actually declaring. I have seen it over and over. But if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Me, I come down on the side of individual autonomy and freedom in all cases, and if that means that I am liberal on some issues and conservative on others, then so be it.

      

  15. 15zombie on Feb 18, 2013 at 6:20 pm:

    If you re-read what I wrote on the topic, I say than in my opinion I would oppose any national law either universally allowing abortion (as is now the case) or universally outlawing abortion (as some social conservatives want).

    I see no hypocrisy in that at all.

    A fallacy in modern American political life is that everyone presumes that their own opinions ought to be applied by force to everyone. I think that’s an effect of contemporary narcissism in which everyone thinks they’re so special. I seem to be one of the few people in this debate who declares that my opinion isn’t that important — why should I have the power to dictate what people far away from me can do?

    Where is the hypocrisy in the notion of “local control” and “community standards”?

    Let’s just say there is a town in Vermont that is 100% liberal and they want to make abortion 100% legal and 100% free. And then let’s say that there is a town in Texas that is 100% social-conservative and wants to make abortion 100% illegal.

    Now, who am I to dictate to either town either way? And why should the liberals of Vermont get to say what happens in Texas, and why should the conservatives in Texas get to say what happens in Vermont?

    The flaw in your reasoning is the presumption that making abortion completely legal is the same thing as being on the “side of freedom.” But a central argument coming from the pro-life side these days is that the “unborn child” is a human being and therefore has human rights and legal rights, and if we kill them en masse, we are denying them their freedom, and thus that legalized abortion is being against freedom.

    Therefore, you are presuming the correctness of your position as part of the proof that your position is correct. A well-known and very common logical fallacy that people seem to fall into over and over, unwittingly.

    You declare, with a decisive “Period”, that those whose believe “that government should be a tool…of social engineering” are inherently authoritarian and conservative and inevitably anti-abortion; but one could just as easy argue that completely legalizing abortion is the most extreme kind of social engineering, designed on purpose to facilitate and openly encourage promiscuity and consequence-free sex. And it’s authoritarian as well because it dictates to conservative people what they may and may not do in their own communities, and commands them to violate their own consciences.

    You are so drunk on your own viewpoint that you do not allow the opposing viewpoint to cloud your thinking. But just try for a moment to put yourself in the shoes of a social conservative, and see how it feels to be forced to violate your own deepest-held beliefs.

    I’m not running for office, so I don’t need to gets “votes” from conservatives. I say things all the time in my essays that piss conservatives off (I’m pro- evolution and anti-creationism, I’m pro-choice, I’m an environmentalist, I voted for gay marriage in California, etc.), so you basically have no idea what you’re talking about when accusing me of hypocrisy for political reasons.

      

  16. 16Scott on Feb 18, 2013 at 6:40 pm:

    Fizziks, we are abiding by a total cop out now. We have been since 1973. Roe v Wade is a court decision, not a law. If someone had the balls to actually introduce a bill in Congress to declare, once and for all, on the federal level, that abortion is legal (or illegal), then we would have an issue to discuss. Religious fundamentalists have no say in today’s government. They are scorned, shunned, sneered at, looked down upon, etc. Catholics, for example, were completely ignored in the Obamacare bill. Contraceptives are to be paid for by the public according to our current administration, Religion be damned!!!

    You also speak of an individual involved, I assume where it comes to the conception of a child. How about there are three individuals involved? Mom, Dad, and baby. In the R v W scenario, Baby has NO say. “It” is subject to the tyranny of the other two. And seldom does the Dad have a say. The framing of the abortion rights argument always includes a strong feminist streak. Males and children need not speak or be heard.

    Where I would agree with you on giving the American citizen the right and autonomy to decide on planning their family future, there does need to be some limit put on this “choice”, and an ability for children to survive butchering. Someday, science may allow all children, from conception forward, to survive without their mother. Currently at least the first trimester is a time when a pregnancy can be humanely terminated. There is no moral defense for that but there is a practical application, at least at this stage in history and science. Sadly, mid and late term abortions are simple savagery that too many on the left blindly defend, and too many on the right use to bludgeon those who want reproductive freedom to remain just that: a freedom.

    Consider this: if there were consequences for having children out of wedlock; that is, no government assistance for out of wedlock children, or the ability to terminate your child at ANY stage, would societal pressure recalibrate to ensure that young women and men controlled themselves while having intercourse? Perhaps (dare I say it) they would become more responsible for their actions? Would the church necessarily become more powerful in that scenario? Contraception is logical and practical. But I shouldn’t have to pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraception, and if she chooses to have sex with 100 men in 100 days, that is HER responsibility, not mine.

    Roe v Wade (and I would add Obamacare) is a cop out indeed.

      

  17. 17Fizziks on Feb 21, 2013 at 9:11 pm:

    To Zombie:

    Ok, as long as we’re holding up “community standards” and “local control” as some sort of thing that absolutely deserves to set policy, then how about we let communities do whatever they want in regard to guns? If a very liberal city or state wants to ban all guns entirely, then by your logic we should let them.

    But I would definitely oppose that, because we have a constitutional (and natural) right to self-defense. It supercedes what our meddling neighbors might want! Same thing with our right to a large number of things, including freedom of religion, privacy, and so on.

    “Local control” in the way you’re advocating, where our fundamental rights are up to a vote of our neighbors, is simply tyranny of the (local) majority and incompatible with a democratic government with individual rights. I can indeed put myself in the shoes of a social conservative, just like I can put myself in the shoes of a gun-phobe – one doesn’t like sex, the other doesn’t like guns – that doesn’t mean that their wishes or aesthetics get to override my rights. You are saying that if enough of them happen to vote in my city or state then their wishes or aesthetics do get to override my rights, and I couldn’t disagree more.

    Scott:

    The situation we have now with regard to abortion is most certainly not the cop-out. By analogy, think of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has declared (rightly) that there is an individual right to bear arms, and no state or locality can take that away. This is good, right?

    Well, the same thing has happened in regard to personal autonomy and privacy. The SCOTUS has declared that Americans have these rights, and no state or locality can take that away. That’s exactly how it should be.

    I agree that people should bear more of the costs of their decisions to have children, and that’s exactly why abortion and contraception should be available without restrictions, to encourage those who don’t want or can’t afford offspring at the present time to not have them.

      

  18. 18Edward on Feb 22, 2013 at 1:55 am:

    I do wish that the parents of that vile hag screaming about her occupied vagina aborted her.

      

  19. 19zombie on Feb 22, 2013 at 10:20 am:

    Fizziks:

    You are missing the main point. Your argument is valid if and only if we assume that the contents of a pregnant woman’s womb is not a human being. And once again you are presuming (without even realizing that you are presuming) the factual correctness of the pro-choice claim that a fetus is not a human life and thus has no human rights.

    To repeat what I said before:

    …A central argument coming from the pro-life side these days is that the “unborn child” is a human being and therefore has human rights and legal rights, and if we kill them en masse, we are denying them their freedom, and thus that legalized abortion is being against freedom.

    Remember that I myself am mildly pro-choice, and that I also think (just as you do) that the abortion debate is really an argument about sex; but even though we agree on those points, I grasp that the pro-life side has a very compelling factual claim (that a fetus is merely a human being that hasn’t been born yet and thus deserves constitutional protections), and that neither you nor anyone else on the pro-choice side has ever effectively disproven or defused that claim.

    Until you do so, all your verbiage about the “tyranny of the majority” not only fails but backfires, because your opponents could rightfully point out that the post-birth adult humans are using the tyranny of the majority to take away the rights of the pre-birth humans.

    You’ve been outmaneuvered in this debate, but you don’t quite realize it yet.

      

  20. 20Scott on Feb 22, 2013 at 7:11 pm:

    Fizziks, the Second Amendment of the Constitution is a poor analogy. The Constitution is a framework upon which law is judged as correct or not; Roe v Wade is a court decision that the Supreme Court decided to uphold based on…what? Which Constitutional right or more specifically, who’s Constitutional right? Roe v Wade is a politically charged court decision that the legislature has decided to hide behind, declaring it the law of the land. It isn’t a law or a Constitutional protection! It is a court decision, and an extremely flawed one at that. I would argue that it is the legislature’s duty to write and pass a law legalizing (or outlawing) abortion, and it is the President’s duty to enforce the decision. For the last 40 years, our presidents have enforced a court decision with no law or Constitutional right to back it up.

    To Zombie’s point, the part of the Roe v Wade decision that is the most flawed is the SCOTUS decision to ignore the rights of the unborn child. He or she is not afforded any protections…and by extension, the flaw: if you were to take a 6 month or 7 month child from her mother’s womb and care for her using today’s sophisticated science, that child has a pretty good shot at survival. Seems to me then that aborting the 7 month old baby means murder, but the SCOTUS didn’t rule that way. SCOTUS only considers the father and mother’s rights. Baby has no rights. Roe v Wade is scientifically wrong, poorly judged and ill considered.

    As Zombie is, I am mildly pro choice, but draw the line at the first trimester. Unfortunately, there are other people in places of great power who want to interpret law to ruthlessly terminate children at any stage of pregnancy up to and including as they are being born. Andrew Como is one case and point. People like that have no heart nor have they a brain.

    On contraception, absolutely people ought to have access to it, and they do. But you hint that somehow everyone has a duty to provide it meaning everyone must pay for it as well. Absolutely not. By government subsidizing birth control, it not only removes freedom from those who have a religious opposition to modern birth control methods (and thus infringing on their first amendment rights), but it also removes responsibility from those who ought to be using birth control. Removing consequences for poor decisions means we are breeding irresponsibility. The cost for irresponsibility is far greater than the so-called compassion of a liberal democratic government.

    If we held people accountable for their actions by removing their ability to be irresponsible (e.g. unfettered access to frequent and carefree heterosexual sex), we’d see less abortion, more use of birth control, fewer STDs, and greater freedom for all.

      

  21. 21OhioRiver on Feb 23, 2013 at 9:10 am:

    Now this is inspiring for me. I praise these individuals for taking time away from their ‘comfort zone’ and stepping into the streets for a cause they believe in.

      

  22. 22Robynne on Mar 15, 2013 at 11:21 am:

    Zombie,
    I love what you do!

      

  23. 23Faith on Mar 26, 2013 at 12:12 pm:

    Thank you so much for doing what you do. I love the way you unmask the deception of the Left.

    I do have a thought about your question of why the theme of “Abortion Hurts Women.” Our culture today seems much more concerned about women’s issues than babies, so perhaps this is to try to appeal to those women who would not think beyond themselves. Also, we know of course that Roe V. Wade is about “choice” for women. Maybe if women were educated at how bad that choice is for themselves, they would make a different choice. Finally, the wonderful pro-life group “Silent No More,” which was started by women who DID have abortions, and are now testifying to what a bad choice that was, were probably the orginators of those particular signs.

    Once again, thank you, and may all the angels of G-D protect you as you venture into the pit of hell on a regular basis.

    Faith

      

  24. 24Eclectic Infidel on Apr 14, 2013 at 9:10 am:

    Hola Zombie. I haven’t been to your site in over a year. Found it just now via a friend on FB who posted about the usual Israel bashing happening on UCB campus (check points, waaaaah, Israel still exists, et al.), and referenced your photo blog.

    I had to work that day and was completely unaware of the sh*t storm that had become Embarcadero. The F car had been rerouted and I was forced to find an alternative route to the Wharf. Very annoying.

    That said, at the time I was there…around 2 PM, the anti-choice crowd was still marching, but peacefully so I was thankful for that. I suspect that crowd is more subdued than their loyal opponents.

    If you get the chance, check out my seldom updated blog for an update on my banning from Little Green Footballs for being super duper insensitive to Palestinians.

      

  25. 25RarityBit on Apr 19, 2013 at 6:24 am:

    OK, so here’s my program based upon your model:

    https://www.box.com/files/0/f/117428664/1/f_7607742546

    It proves that I need to find something better to do with my time. For reference here are the parameters:

    Pro-choice: PROCREATE = 50, BIRTH_CONTROL = 80, ABORTION = 20; Pro-life: PROCREATE = 10, BIRTH_CONTROL = 10, ABORTION = 0.

      

  26. 26Christina Dunigan on Jun 5, 2013 at 9:16 am:

    Of all the pro-abortion chants and slogans, the ones that accuse the prolifers of “killing women” or “not caring if women die” are the most enragingly hypocritical, since every single woman who ever died from a botched abortion died at the hands of a prochoicer. We never were the ones wielding the instruments of death, be they catheters or cannulas or coathangers.

    And the “women’s lives” advocates show a stunning indifference to women dying from safe-n-legal abortions, and have a history of actually leaping to the defense of deadly abortionists, such as Bruce Steir, who pulled a loop of Sharon Hamplton’s bowel out, stuffed it back in without telling her about it, and abandoned her to inadequately trained staff who pushed her out the door in a wheelchair and loaded her into her mother’s car to bleed to death on the way home.

    How people who would defend a man like that and then accuse their opponents of being the ones who “kill women” shows the degree of recto-cranial impaction they suffer from. Or perhaps more accurately, they make others suffer because of.

      

  27. 27Fedor on Jun 18, 2013 at 9:23 am:

      

  28. 28Indi Doll on Jun 18, 2013 at 9:24 am:

    Вы ищите сексуальную партнершу. Самое время сказать «Нет» походам по злачным местам, ночным клубам и сомнительного вида салонам, предлагающим некачественный «товар»! Вам нужны распутные, нежные, зажигательные сексапильные индивидуалки высшего категории! Именно такие девушки размещают у нас анкеты. Посетив сайт 74kiski.com – Индивидуалки Челябинск. Вы удостоверитесь, что найти вип проститутку в виртуальном пространстве поисковых систем Google или Yandex гораздо удобнее и быстрее.

      

  29. 29thuoc giam can on Jul 9, 2013 at 5:29 am:

    Thanks, a really interesting read – added to bookmarks so will check back for new content and to read other people’s comments. Cheers again.

      

  30. 30Ariana on Jul 13, 2013 at 11:04 pm:

    Zombie
    You have remained throughout the last decade- my hero. I first read your satirical observations back in 2004 as exemplified by your recent comment blending consistent insightful snark:

    “the glory days of the 1960s when the presence of countless “open-minded” girls in the counter-culture made it so appealing to the nation’s boys that it grew into a mass movement and created a social revolution.”

    You remain one of the few people that can make me laugh about situations that sometimes leave me with an unhealthy despair. Satire remains the great motivational weapon.

    My introduction to Friedrich Engels’ “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” occurred some years ago during a graduate history course. I had a similiar reaction to its underlying thesis and role as the”fundamental building blocks of the left’s anti-family philosophy”, My reaction was reinforced by other assigned readings and endless lectures and discussions that pushed the same message at the next generation of historians. It is significant that this strategy was introduced so many generations ago, Those individuals implimenting this strategy have shown a great deal of patience and strategy towards moving all their chess pieces into place. Is it too late to reverse the process?

      

  31. 31Cash Advance Online on Jul 26, 2013 at 2:48 pm:

    amazing keep reading

      

  32. 32Christina on Oct 3, 2013 at 9:05 am:

    Zombie, the tragic statistics aren’t bewildering at all. They are a parading of “We care about women!” to imply that, of course, prolifers DON’T care about women. And because the prolifers stay on-message (this is about abortion), they don’t drag in their opposition to rape, domestic violence, human trafficking, child abuse, etc.

    Interestingly, for all the supposed prochoice outrage at rape and domestic violence, I listened to a very interesting tape of a National Abortion Federation meeting session. This one was a bunch of nurses trying to hash out a problem that (to their credit) disturbed them very much: Their abortion patients were in great danger of getting possibly fatal infections if they did not abstain from sex for six weeks after their abortions.

    The core of the problem was the total resignation to the reason their patients were so endangered. They discussed it at length:

    These women were by and large in relationships (though I hesitate to elevate these situations with that word) with men who refused to wear condoms, had multiple “partners”, and — I forget exactly what euphemistic phrases were used to discuss it — were unwilling to abstain from sex during those six weeks.

    Now, where I come from, and among the prolifers, having sex with a woman who does not want to engage in sex has a very clear name: RAPE. And we would take it as a given that none of those women who were sent home to those pigs had any desire to endanger their lives by having those man-pigs’ STD-festooned penises thrust into their aching and bleeding vaginas. If any woman had come into a prolife center saying that her man would not allow her to abstain from sex, there would be an immediate offer to take her to the battered women’s shelter.

    Among those tsk-tisking abortion nurses was exactly zero talk about helping the women to escape these situations, to provide them with referrals or even moral support. There was no talk about why the women were in such downtrodden situations and whether there wasn’t a way to help them. There was no talk about how beaten down and demoralized, and how much they just needed a bit of 1:1 basic human decency. Which, BTW, the prolife centers do provide.

    But back to those nurses: evidently sending each of these wretched, hopeless women home to get loaded up with an infection along with a fresh fetus to abort is just so much part of the routine that the nurses just got used to it and can’t imagine things being any other way.

    Interesting how it was Ron Fitzsimmons, President of the American Coalition of Abortion Providers, who originally launched the ongoing attacks on those nasty pregnancy centers that give the women 1:1 basic human decency. Probably because you not only lose the 1-time customer, but you run the risk of breaking the cycle of abortion after abortion after abortion after one domestic rape after the other. And the supposedly woman-loving prochoicers back Fitzsimmons and the abortion juggernaut in those attacks, and work tirelessly to ensure that no abortion business in America need falter and close for lack of customers, and that no loyal abortion clinic customer ever escapes the hellish life that keeps sending her back there.

    But back to those nurses: ALL of their talk centered on whether or not they could come up with a way to sweet-talk the pigs into wearing condoms, at least for a week or so, during those not-letting-her-abstain-but-let’s-not-call-it-rape encounters.

    It makes me want to pound my head against the wall. Though, were I a clearer thinker, I’d want to pound those nurses’ heads against the wall.

    Maybe they shout “uterus” and “vagina” so much because they can’t afford to see the woman on the abortion table as anything else. The minute you let yourself think about the life she’s going back to, you can see that scraping her out is just enabling her abuser and keeping her trapped, while right down the street (or even right outside) are people who would move heaven and earth to help her to get on her feet in a situation where she can hold her head high and really call her body her own.

      

Leave a Reply

Name Email Website URI