Overheard at work: every single bad pro-abortion argument ever. Seriously, it was awful. "People have to be able to make choices" (not choices that kill other people, though), "It's none of my business" (so if your neighbor is abusing their child but not hurting you to do it, is that also none of your business?), "Religion shouldn't dictate public policy" (people said that about the abolitionists, but thank goodness those people lost that fight). It was that bad.

However, the speaker was a guy, and he also believes the bad pro-abortion logic that men shouldn't get seriously involved in the abortion debate. And you should never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake. So I have every intention of letting him wallow in ignorance.

Good grief, though, how is it that these arguments still have legs?!? Every single one of them is terrible.

I read an article on Twitchy about Charmaine Yoest's appearance on MSNBC. I have not watched the video, but apparently abortion apologists are Not Pleased with how the interview went down. Particularly @tommyxtopher who wrote his own article about labels. Or @lizzwinstead who is still ranting on Twitter tonight about an interview that aired this morning. Because apparently she just stews about stuff all day instead of, say, going to work or buying groceries or doing the things that normal human beings do to...you know...live.

Whatever.

Anyway, as Twitchy notes, Lizz Winstead is horrified that MSNBC did not instantly require Charmaine Yoest to call herself "anti-choice." Because, Tommy Christopher protests, "Like *we're* not also pro-life?"

First off, I suspect MSNBC put the kibosh on "anti-choice" because that does not put pro-lifers on the defensive. Instead it would have given Yoest a wide open door to say something like, "You mean you don't oppose choices that kill children?" Hardly a rhetorical advantage for the abortion apologist.

Second, no Tommy, abortion defenders are not pro-life. They are defending the legal protection for the killing of defenseless human beings, and justifying these deaths as legally, ethically, and morally acceptable. No one who claims it is okay to kill innocent human beings is in any way "pro-life." I will agree with that the converse of pro-life is "anti-life," but Mr. Christoper's disliking that fact does not mean...anything at all really. He just dislikes it.

So, here's the thing, most pro-life people will cheerfully say that we are anti-choice-to-kill-children. Because every sane person in the world is. But, the more that slur gets tossed around, the more likely the pro-life movement is to stop being so kind about not saying "anti-life" or "pro-abortion" in general, instead of just to each other. And if "anti-choice" is rhetorically unpleasant, "anti-life" and "pro-abort" are ten times worse. Once again, the labeling advantage is against those supporting abortion. For all the squawking of Tommy and Lizz, if they were given what they wanted, the response of the pro-life movement would put them in an even worse position, label-wise, then they're in right now.

Poor them. Maybe once I'm done trying to end my country's legal protection for the greatest human rights injustice in history I will be able to spare some sympathy for them.

But probably not.

I discovered a thread of abortion center escorts on jobstr.com (apparently they were invited, so that's a new website to add to your avoid-list) and while most of the questions and responses are typical pro-abortion boilerplate, there was one that made me laugh.

Q: Do protesters taunt you guys too, or just the women going to get abortions?
Asked by Luiz on 01/30/2013

A: Yes, definitely. When they are not focused on the clients, the protesters will turn their attentions to the escorts. They try to convince of the errors in our thinking every day. We have been called evil, devils and have had prayers directed towards us.

So calling someone evil or devil is just as mean as praying for them! 'Scuse me whilst I die of laughter. Could this chick pour on any more hyperbole? Geez. I don't have much sympathy for her being called nasty names. She's directly involved in an industry that kills one million people a year in the US alone. I could care less about her precious little feelings. However, that's a genuinely mean-spirited action, regardless of whether I feel sorry for her experience of it or not. It is objectively negative.

Equating that to being prayed for? Perspective, woman. Get you some.

The 40 Days For Life campaign is currently ongoing in multiple nations around the world. On Day 28, the 19th, their blog reported on a new tactic being employed by various abortion locations to try and drive away protesters: spreading organic fertlizer (manure) over their lawns.

Yes, the abortion centers are voluntarily covering themselves in poo. It's bold, it's stinky, and it's ineffective. So take a moment to join me on the bench in the icon over there and share a nice, long laugh. Because I'm pretty sure that this is the funniest thing I've heard this week.

After doing some thinking on where I do want this blog to go, I'm settling on mostly a snarkish sort of direction from a pro-life perspective. After Gingi Edmonds vanished from the web there seems to be an opening in the pro-life blogosphere for a snarky sort of blog. Of Gingi was a bit more insane than I'd like to be, so you won't see me ranting in quite the same fashion she did.

To that end, I was looking around for something to commentate on (always a plus), and discovered this entry on the pro_choice comm here on Dreamwidth. Since that entry is a repost from a personal blog, I've decided to look at the original blog-posting as well as what was posted to the comm.

So, let's have a look.

Pro-Choice: A somewhat Christian position

Oh dear...

( More... )

I may come back and add more to this after church, but for now I'll just put up a short note.

Yesterday, President Obama released the following statement for the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women's health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.

And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Okay, feministy rant to be added later. For now, I will let John Piper do the ranting. This video is a year old, and unfortunately, it still applies.



EDIT: All right, now that I'm back from church and can get to the feminist ranting and give it the attention it deserves. Because Obama's little statement there is stupendously anti-feminist. Did you catch it?

"...On this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams."

*suppresses urge to throw things*

Women. Do. Not. Need. Abortion. To. Be. Equal. With. Men!

Women are equal, as they are, with no additions, subtractions, or modifications required to make them that way. In fact, the very idea of changing women in order to make the culture in which they live view them more positively is, by its very nature, antithetical to feminism. It is the opposite of feminism. It is anathema to feminism. If a culture views women wrongly, or views anything of which women are capable--including pregnancy and motherhood--wrongly, the solution is not to change women, it is to change the culture. The suggestion that women are, by their nature, inferior to men simply because we can become pregnant is insulting, offensive, degrading, and pig-headed.

President Obama, as a woman, I am offended by that statement.