Kelinci Hutan
29 December 2013 @ 10:12 pm
I am in the Seattle Airport (in Washington, bastion of left-wing crazies), cheerfully browsing Jill Stanek's blog. I'm fixing to click over to Live Action.

I feel so subversive and counter-cultural. I suppose this state did turn me into a hipster. :D
 
 
Location: West Coast Sky-Port 2
Mood: tired
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
04 September 2012 @ 09:08 am
So, the Republican National Convention was a good watch. I really enjoyed the speeches from (Ann) Romney, Ryan, and Rubio. Romney-the-Presidential-Candidate's speech was not bad, but not quite as interesting. I was glad to hear Obama's top-down approach to government so thoroughly repudiated. As Marco Rubio said, "These are ideas people come to America to get away from" and I've seen the mess those ideas made in Indonesia enough to be certain that we don't want them here.

I also enjoyed observing the leftie obsession with "dog whistles" and how basically every other thing any of the speakers said was a dog whistle. Usually a racist one. My thoughts on that phenomenon are pretty well summed up by this article. I heard maybe one thing that would qualify as a dog whistle, and that was the end of Paul Ryan's speech when he condemned the left for perpetuating pro-abortion oppression, but he didn't use the word "abortion" to do it. I haven't seen these comments roundedly denigrated by every media outlet ever, as I had expected when he chose to end his speech on a pro-life note, so I'm wondering if perhaps that flew over the heads of those not in the pro-life movement.

I did notice, however, a lot of claims that most of the speeches didn't make policy statements, so I'm wondering if all of those were "dog whistles," too? I thought I heard some pretty clear ones from Romney towards the end there. Or maybe it's just that those on the right are familiar with the Republican platform already, and so the RNC is more interested in defining the reasons they adopted that platform then they are in telling people stuff they already know. I don't know that Democrats truly are better at making policy statements, but there seems to be broad agreement that they do make them more often. So, I'm wondering if that's because they feel (correctly or incorrectly) that people don't know what their policies are and they need to tell people.
 
 
Location: Ivy Manor
Music: "Trying To Communicate" from Battleship by Steve Jablonsky
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
20 January 2011 @ 10:24 am
I've been fiddling with the idea of making a blog specifically for pro-life comments for a while now, and so I finally did it. And just in time for the March for Life, too. :) This doesn't mean I'll never put pro-life comments here anymore, but I will probably put the longer, or more thoughtful ones over there.

Ta-da!

Today's post is in honor of "Ask Them What They Mean by 'Choice' Blog Day," in which I encourage everyone to participate.
Tags:
 
 
Mood: accomplished
Location: Ivy Manor
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
19 January 2011 @ 03:43 pm
So, by now I'm sure everyone knows about that abortionist who is charged with eight murders.

Now, since I'm a pro-lifer, I knew about this guy back when the initial raid took place, and so I'm not surprised about this now. Yeah, he's pretty much a jerk. I hope he rots.

Since that's basically all there is to be said there, rather than ranting about him, I'm going to rant about this thread, which is so full of fail and frustrating ignorance that it makes me want to scream. So, portions of the article linked there will be in italics, and comments from posters will be in regular print.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, made millions of dollars over 30 years, performing as many illegal, late-term abortions as he could, prosecutors said. State regulators ignored complaints about him and failed to visit or inspect his clinic since 1993, but no charges were warranted against them, District Attorney Seth Williams said.

J: Are you fucking kidding me? You don't inspect doctors offices unless they have criminal charges against them? What the hell is wrong with you people???


Could it possibly be that whenever pro-lifers insist that abortion doctors undergo routine inspections and be required to meet normal safety regulations, the abortion apologists start raving about "TRAP laws" and "unfair discrimination" and "abortion on demand without apology" and so on and so forth?

Case in point: when Virginia tried to enact legislation requiring abortion mills in the state to meet the same requirements as other medical offices that performed surgeries (you know, like dentists and veterinary clinics), the abortion apologists flipped out. Rachel Maddow went on a long rant on her show about how ridiculous it was to hold abortionists to standards, and others said how that might shut down 17 of the 21 abortuaries there, and Tarina Keene went on about how abortion is "one of the safest procedures" so regulations and safety inspections are redundant.

Obviously, inspecting abortion offices unless they have criminal charges against them is a bad thing as per the so-called pro-choicers of the United States. Way to go.

Gosnell “induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord,” Williams said.

J: Efficient. Except for how DANGEROUS THAT IS.


Are you kidding me? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? This filth masquerading as a human being had babies in his hands that were alive, breathing, and probably screaming at the top of their lungs, and he stabbed them to death with scissors and you're going to sit there and whine about how dangerous that is? Of course it's dangerous! It's MURDER! Even an abortion apologist can not call the stabbing death of a newborn anything but! This isn't simply "dangerous," it's monsterous, and how dare you ignore that? You may ignore the three thousand odd other children who die every day in the US, since you can't see them, but you could have seen these children, and still...

J: So out of what I'm assuming is lack of options for these minority women, as well as lack of money, they have to go to this barbaric fucker.

Workers, some of whom were also charged with murder, were untrained and unlicensed, including a high-school student who performed anesthesia with potentially lethal narcotics, Williams said.

J: I'll take that as a yes.


Ah, but what you don't know is that this guy is par for the course when it comes to abortion "doctors." Who could forget John Eiland, and his off-the-books abortion for his co-worker snugglebunny; Rapin Osathanondh, who killed a girl in 2007 and was finally convicted for it on manslaughter charges last year; Romeo Ferrer, who had to quit doing abortions in Maryland after his licence was suspended last year because he killed a girl in 2006 and the suspension is his only punishment; Steven Brigham, who...read that article, he's really just the scum of the Earth; Nicola Riley, who worked with Brigham and was suspended along with him; George Shepard, who "badly injured" one of his 18-year-old victims... Oh, and this fun little shop of horrors in Australia, where they were deliberately infecting their patients with Hep C. And I didn't have to look that hard for these names. If you want to be appalled, click on the Real Choice blog up there on the link list. Jill Stanek also keeps a list of the various so-called doctors that have been indicted, suspended, fired, jailed, or otherwise noted, and that list is...really long.

Abortionists are not nice poeple. They are not safe. They are dangerous and they hurt people, and not just the unborn ones.

Ah, but the best comes for last. The real gems here are from ZoZo and rae.

ZoZo: Fucking hell. This is why we need to fight for access to legal, safe, early abortions for women, so shit like this doesn't ever need to happen.

rae: This. So fucking much.

The thing with the feet sounds more like something from a B horror movie than real life. I predict there will be a 'based on true events' story within five years.


Oh, yes. Because abortions will be safer if only they happen sooner, right? And obviously all those horrible "anti-choicers" are at fault for making it so hard to get early abortions, right? And...wait, that doesn't make any sense. The people who care enough to defend life before anyone else can be arsed are not the ones you get mad at when you find a murderer.

Bear in mind, this is in a country where abortion is legal. Where the majority of women getting abortions used birth control and used it correctly. This is not a "back-alley butcher." And while his late-term abortions were illegal, it's worth mentioning that the abortion apologists are constantly pushing for less restrictions on late-term abortions. George Carhart has admitted to performing illegal late-term abortions, and has not been arrested for it, and has been praised by the abortion establishment! This kind of thing? That's what the abortion apologists want, whether they recognize it or not.

Yeah, those "front-alley" abortions are so gosh-darned safe. Obviously legalizing abortion was a great idea. But hey, at least we'll all have something to whine about how tacky and inconsiderate it is when those "based on true events" movies come out in a few years. Unbelievable.
 
 
Location: Ivy Manor
Music: "Rehnuma" from Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Mood: angry
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
This week has been, so far, a great week to be a pro-lifer. Three great things.

First, a federal judge has placed an injunction on Obama's embryonic stem cell funding order. Judge Lamberth pointed out, and rightly so, that funding such research is in direct contradiction to the Dickey-Wicker Amendment which prohibits federal funding of research that involves destroying embryos. He further argued that it is ridiculous to suppose that you can pick apart bits of a continuous process, claim that one bit is unrelated to another, and fund each separately, saying, "Simply because ESC research involves multiple steps does not mean that each step is a separate 'piece of research' that may be federally funded, provided the step does not result in the destruction of an embryo." This injunction does not (indeed, can not, lamentably) stop people from obtaining private funding to do ESC research, even though ESC treatments have, to date, done nothing good for anybody and a lot of bad for the unfortunate test subjects who've been subjected to them.

Second, in Washington, the State Board of Pharmacy has decided to drop its rule forcing pharmacists to dispense "emergency contraception" pills, which can act as abortifacients, even against their own consciences. This rule was initially upheld by a court but has now been dropped by the pharmacy board, possibly because the court was ruminating on overturning it anyway (I heard some rumblings, but nothing definite, so don't quote me on this), and may be revisited again in the future.

Third, and in a turn of events that I find amusing and infuriating by turns, the Virginia Attorney General's office has issued an opinion stating that the state Board of Health can regulate abortion mills, and can, in fact, hold them to the same standard as they would any other medical facility like a hospital or a dentist or a vet. Wait! you say, They weren't held to those standards already? No, no they weren't. In fact, according to Virginia pro-aborts, being forced to meet standard health and safety regulations could result in 17 of the state's 21 abortion mills closing down! While many abortion apologists claim, probably correctly, that the state AG, Ken Cuccinelli, is really just trying to shut down the mills, the fact that all but four of the state's mills must be allowed to continue operating without meeting safety regulations or else close down should be where everyone's concern is. The fact that the pro-aborts are even trying to defend unsafe abortion practices is just...sad. This opinion is not binding and it may be two years before the state health board begins enforcing anything.
 
 
Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: good
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
30 April 2010 @ 09:09 am
I'm not even going to bother to comment in the latest abortion thread on WGW. Sometimes people just want to be hard-headed, and who am I to stop them?

Oklahoma's congress just overrode a gubernatorial veto on two pro-life bills. One requiring mothers considering abortions to view ultrasounds of their children before they do, and the other... It's going to be hard typing this without keeling over laughing but here goes. Bear in mind however, it's not at all about what WGW is saying it is, but more on that in a minute.

So, the folks on WGW, and pro-abort lobbyists elsewhere are making out like this bill outright says doctors can go ahead and lie to their patients if being honest might encourage them to abort. Now, I would say this claim is outright ridiculous on the face of it, but given that abortion "doctors" can and regularly do lie to their victims about how developed their children are, I suppose I can't be surprised that that's what they're seeing. If it's in their playbook, naturally, they'll expect it to show up in ours.

Now the first question that comes to my mind is, "Did any of the WGWers actually look at the linked article?" Which is this one. Now, A] this is written by a pro-abort. It says so right there in the Editor's Note. "Mary Alice Carr is vice president for communications at the National Institute for Reproductive Health." We're not dealing with an unbiased viewpoint here. But--and this is the biggie, B]it says right in the link that this is an opinion piece! This woman is not reporting news, she's doing an editorial! But in case you miss it in the URL, there's a note down at the bottom. "The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mary Alice Carr." CNN doesn't put that at the bottom of news articles, because those are news and it's the job of CNN as an entity to stand behind their accuracy. Ideally, news articles are not opinions, but facts.

Getting your news from an opinion piece. Fail number one. Moving on we come to...

The next question I had was, "Did any of the WGWers look up the law in question?" I have no idea, but since I did, I'll reveal what I've been sitting on. This law makes it illegal to collect damages in a "wrongful life" or "wrongful birth" suit.

No, really, that's it. You can no longer sue Oklahoma doctors because you have a living child. You could before.

Yurp, the source of all the squawking is a law preventing wrongful life suits, totally unrelated to whether or not you can or can't lie to your patients. Now, because there is occasionally fire at the source of pro-abort smoke, I read through the law in question. So, just to underline what this law is about, Section 1A reads "It is the intent of the Legislature that the birth of a child does not constitute a legally recognizable injury and that it is contrary to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child."

Now, into the meatier stuff. I am guessing that the source of the kerfluffle is Section 1C (there's only three sections, and two and three are only one paragraph each) which reads "In a wrongful life action or a wrongful birth action, no damages may be recovered for any condition that existed at the time of a child’s birth if the claim is that the defendant’s act or omission contributed to the mother’s not having obtained an abortion." So, while it doesn't say that the doctor may lie to a woman, it does say she can't sue him if he left something out and she didn't have an abortion as a result. Which would be tricky to prove anyway, but that's something else again. So that looks pretty bad unless you read Section 1D: "This section shall not preclude causes of action based on claims that, but for a wrongful act or omission, maternal death or injury would not have occurred, or handicap, disease, or disability of an individual prior to birth would have been prevented, cured, or ameliorated in a manner that preserved the health and life of the affected individual." So, you can still sue your doctors for malpractice, lying to you, other ethical fudging, all you want. Go crazy. You just can't sue them on the grounds that your child is alive. You can have the same lawsuit on other grounds, but not on those.

Not verifing what the law in question is actually about. Fail number two.

Am I going to wade into all this stuff and comment? Nope. That thread is more than funny enough now. There's conspiracy theories and hating on the South and myths about pro-lifers flying so thick and fast that it's almost like a snowstorm. And it's hilarious.
 
 
Mood: amused
Location: Ivy Manor
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
23 February 2010 @ 01:42 pm
I'm not going to post any further in this thread, but ZoZo, who I usually like fine, has managed to try and make the argument that "pro-choice" is also "pro-life" and "pro-life" is really "anti-choice."

As usual, it's just as stupid as always, but rather than posting further there, since that drama will blow over fairly quickly if I don't, I'll just vent my spleen in my LJ. Being as that's what it's for and all.

And no, I have no intentions of being nice here. Skip this entry if that will bother you. )

What this really boils down to? "It's okay when I do it, but not when you do." It's entitlement. Pro-choicers are mad that the pro-life movement has the audacity to continue to exist after they've repeatedly told us not to. Now--far too late, by the way--they're realizing that "pro-life" has a much better ring to it and is more rhetorically powerful, so they are desperately trying to redefine the movement. They're going to fail for two reasons. 1. Pro-lifers are in the majority now. 2. This focus on "choice" leaves the terribly serious charge of, "Dude, you're killing human beings." to stand unanswered.

This is not a road the pro-choice movement wants to go down. The obvious rhetorical retaliatiation to "anti-choice" is "anti-life," and it's cropping up more and more commonly as "anti-choice" becomes more firmly established. If they lost the last choice/life rhetoric fight, they're really going to loose this one, and loose it hard.
 
 
Location: Ivy Manor
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
07 February 2010 @ 08:02 pm
Okay, okay, okay, so the Tebow commercial came out. It's completely unobjectionable. Leik woah. So, I suspect in an attempt to mitigate the egg on their face from kicking and screaming about it before it came out, this article had a seriously funny paragraph.

The Women's Media Center, which had objected to Focus on the Family advertising in the Super Bowl, said it was expecting a "benign" ad but not the humor. But the group's president, Jehmu Greene, said the tackle showed an undercurrent of violence against women.


*eye roll*
 
 
Location: Ivy Manor
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
02 February 2010 @ 01:35 pm
Woot! I have made the podcast! You can listen to Josh, Carrie, and Liz discuss my email on the LifeReport podcast now, if you like. Mine is the very last one of the show.
 
 
Location: Ivy Manor
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
30 January 2010 @ 01:07 pm
CBS is airing a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl. I've been sitting on this, hoping I'd get to see the wank-splosion that was sure to happen on WGW after, but now I'm sadly denied this source of amusment.

Instead, I think I'll just make fun of any particularly lame comments here.

tachikoma01
Wonder if they'd have let an ad run featuring a grieving husband talking about how his wife died from pregnancy complications.

Magic eight ball says no.
First off, unrelated situation is unrelated. I mean, it's about choice, right? So if this woman chose to go ahead with her pregnancy and died as a result, then that situation, while tragic, has nothing to do with the abortion debate. This is why I don't call the movement "pro-choice" unless I'm speaking to members. For a lot of this movement, there's only one choice, they're pro. If it were different, no one would care much that this ad is running. It's her choice, right? A few people have reacted that way but with most...not so much. All this uproar would not be if it were really about choice.

Second, how does that phrase go? "Never an easy choice, sometimes the right choice, always the woman's choice?" Yeah, that first bit is the one to notice here. Pro-lifers have a bottomless well of both jubilant stories of choosing life and celebrating it and sad ones of abortions that ruined lives. Abortion stories are usually just sad. The Super Bowl should be upbeat. Abortions are...not upbeat.

More to follow...probably.
 
 
Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: amused
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
23 January 2010 @ 03:59 pm
Yesterday, some people know, was the 38th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision. The very next year, 1974, the first annual March for Life was held in Washington DC, protesting legal abortion in our country. Since then, the pro-life movement has grown and is still growing. Yesterday was the 37th consecutive March for Life. Over twenty members of Congress spoke at the rally before the march, representing both the House and the Senate. Alvida King, Martin L. King's niece, was in attendance. Guess how much media coverage this march recieved?

Virtually none. Seriously, did you know about it? I thought not.

Okay, so what? Lots of Congress critters and a King showed up. Who cares? Alright, try this on for size: there were over two hundred thousand demonstrators. 200,000. Possibly as many as three hundred thousand. People came from at least all of the "lower 48," although I suspect Hawaii and Alaska were also represented. People came from other countries like Spain and France and Ireland. Name me any other movement in the history of the US that stages demonstrations like this dependably, every single year and doesn't have their big annual event get at least a solid mention in most of the major news outlets? Seriously. Name me one. Anything.

Yeah, I've got nothing, either.

So, let's look at some of the folks that did "cover" it. Here is NPR's article. "Roe v. Wade Anniversary Brings Anti, Pro Marchers To DC." Well, okay, technically accurate as there apparently were pro-abortion demonstrators there. This article estimates that there were "about 60 abortion rights demonstrators." Sixty? Really? Sixty pro-abortion demonstrators? To 200K pro-life ones? Even the abbreviated form of 200K is bigger than 60. They probably all felt like this picture from the NPR article:



That Scripps article describes the pro-life crowd as "angry," too. I have to say, I watched that rally on EWTN, (the only network reliably covering it) and they weren't "angry." The Orthodox Rabbi that spoke was a regular firebrand, I'll grant. He might have been a little bit angry. Certainly the crowd was energized and excited. But I suppose any energy seems like anger to people who want those who have it to be bad guys.

CNN gave a bit of a mention, as well. Near the bottom is this hilarious line. "'A fetus is not a life, sorry,' NOW President Terry O'Neill told CNN." Sorry, science! Sorry, biology! Sorry, common sense and intelligent philosophy! You are all wrong, because I say so! Ha, ha, ha! Yeah, it doesn't work like that.

To quote Steven D. Greydanus at the National Catholic Register:
This is sheer mendacity—not even just biased journalism, it’s outright malicious deception.

This was not a meeting or juxtaposition of two opposed demonstrations, however equal or unequal. It was a massive pro-life demonstration with a few counter-demonstrators. We were the event; they were a tiny footnote. That is simply a fact that the CNN.com piece is nakedly attempting to bury.

bolding his

Why am I not surprised. Heaven forbid people actually discover how wide-spread and fired-up this movement actually is! Why then all those folks with pro-life leanings might actually figure out they're not alone!

So, if you're curious what it really looked like, Jill Stanek posted some of her pictures. The Washington Times has a good photo gallery, too. On YouTube, a search for "March for Life" and "2010" returned this.

Way to miss the story, media folks. When Roe comes crashing down and most of the country throws parties, you'll probably miss that one, too. I won't, though. I'll be with these guys, celebrating.

 
 
Mood: annoyed
Location: Ivy Manor
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
12 November 2009 @ 08:48 pm
I've been obssively reading the news lately, and I found this article that says that abortion rights or health care was a "false choice" that Congress was being forced to make.

To grab a couple quotes that caught my eye.

...With the Stupak-Pitts amendment hanging from it like an albatross, a bill was passed that would cover millions of uninsured Americans but also strip millions of American women of reproductive health coverage. To the uncompromising went the victory.

Is this how it goes these days?

...

It's now abortion-rights supporters being told they must make further concessions or lose health care reform altogether. And, as Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette said, "a lot of the people are angry. They feel like the liberals and progressives always cave in because they want the bigger goal. We have to draw the line somewhere."

Where exactly do you draw a line when the opposition keeps moving it? How do you compromise with those who are uncompromising? These questions are too common in our polarized climate, but the stakes are even higher in this debate.


This is the kind of thinking I see in a lot of pro-choice writing. Why don't pro-lifers compromise? Why won't they settle for what they have now? Why doesn't this issue go away?

First off, when the hell did compromising your principles become a virtue we are seeking to attain? "To the uncompromising went the victory. Is that how it goes these days?" I sure as hell hope so, you moron! Thank goodness that we're finally seeing pro-life people have enough clout to get some legislating done on it. Not compromising is a good thing. Geesh. Compromise is what you do when you can't get what you think would be better so you make do with what's available. It's not the ideal, it's something less. Good grief.

Next, and this is something I'm more and more realizing as I interact with pro-choicers, I don't think a lot of pro-choice people really understand the pro-life position as well as they think. Because if they did, there would not be much surprise that the pro-life movement isn't going away. There'd be even less surprise that it gets stronger in the face of every defeat, regroups and tries again. And no one would ever be shocked that it's uncompromising because this isn't the kind of issue you compromise on.

"How do you compromise with those who are uncompromising?" The answer is, you don't. You either beat them or not. If Ms. Goodman would think about it, I bet she'd understand why, too. Consider that every unborn fetus who is aborted is a person. No, don't shy away from it or roll your eyes 'cause you've heard it before. Really think about it. Wrap your head around that concept. Let it sink in. People. Real people. Real, honest-to-goodness, they-have-a-life-and-a-voice-and-a-place-in-our-world people. Some of them would be your best friend, your lover, your teacher, your student, your enemy, your mentor, your criminal, your charity, your victim, your acquaintance, and your stranger. Real people. Real, empty spaces that should be filled by them. Real lives that are really lost. Those are the people--not the fetuses or the "groups of cells," but people--that pro-lifers see in all those dead babies. All that lost life. Real life and it's really gone. Take a deep breath and ask yourself a question. If you saw people like that dying all around you, would you ever, ever give up? Would you stop or rest ever until they were protected?

It's not good enough to take what we have. There are people dying and they need to be saved. Abortion is not health care. It's a business of death, and it needs to be stopped.
 
 
Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: okay
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
06 November 2009 @ 05:57 pm
Okay, so this post will hopefully be shorter than the last one, but I am adding a second to the "pro-abortion arguments that I am actively trying to eradicate."

The first, which I may have written on before, runs something like this. "Many of the children who are aborted will live difficult, harsh lives. They'll be impoverished or hungry or disabled or ill. They will be born to families with too many children already or in places where medical care is poor. It is much kinder and better to abort such children before they have a chance to experience this suffering."

ARGH!

Now that I've gotten that out of my system, to the argument. It doesn't really work. First off, it runs on the assumption that the unborn are people with lives ahead of them, and that those lives are valuable, at least in some sense. This, already, undermines any statement about the permissability of killing such persons being as they are alive and are human.

However, if that weren't bad enough, the rest of the argument operates on some incredibly unbalanced logic. For example, let's say I met a homeless man. He is hungry, he is not dressed warmly during winter, he has no shoes, and doesn't have so much as one solitary cent to his name. However, by all appearances, he is relatively young, and I estimate will live at least another twenty years enduring exactly the sufferings that he is enduring now, with no likely relief or end in sight. Seeing this, I say to this man, "You are unfortunate and have been mistreated by life, and the universe in general. I will, therefore, kill you and save you from all possible future suffering!" I pull a gun from my coat and shoot him dead. Would anyone say I had done this man a favor? No, of course not. Instead, I have added injury to insult by murdering someone who had already been dealt just about every other possible harm in his life. If you assume life is valuable enough that the suffering of a living person should be avoided, then killing that person to prevent their suffering is...dumb, to be honest.

This is a bad argument.

So, the second argument comes in a lot of different forms, gets stated a lot of different ways, but each of them ultimately come down to this one statement. "Access to abortion on demand is absolutely essential to women's equality, therefore, as feminists, we must support abortion on demand."

Right, so leaving out the fact that sex-selective abortions are doing women no favors at all, not just in the US, but all around the globe1, this argument rests on the assumption that women are biologically less than men because we can get pregnant. That our capacity to be pregnant is limiting and is a biological hindrance to women's equality. Thus, by extension, pregnancy is disempowering to women and holds us back from achieving our goals. And pregnant women are specifically less than men.

This is a dead false, poisonous lie. It is the opposite of feminism, and I reject it entirely.

So, don't use the first argument, because it's logically unsound. Don't use the second argument, because it's insulting.


  1. So, this is Wikipedia's take on the subject. As if it doesn't happen in the US. Apparently being female is a "genetic disorder." But, hey, abortion on demand for whatever reason, right? Apparently the fact that we're killing off our girls in numbers unprecedented throughout all of history is the road to female empowerment. Or something.
 
 
Mood: angry
Location: Ivy Manor
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
10 April 2009 @ 03:27 pm
Today the guy from Jeff Sessions office returned my call and said that he's actually put some effort into trying to track down how many red envelopes were recieved by the White House. (!!!) Apparently the White House is not releasing that information (at least, not yet), even to people on "the Hill." (Shock, shock.) His theory was that they either don't feel like telling people, or the rather more mundane explanation that the mail hasn't quite gotten through screening yet (personally, I think the former is more fun, but the latter is more probable).

He also, very kindly, gave me a phone number to call. It is, unfortunately, the same number for the White House switchboard that I already have (darn!), but at least he tried. He also said that they were in support of the efforts of the project. Given Senator Sessions' leanings, I can't say I'm surprised.

So, my calling the Communications Office got nowhere (they may not pick up calls refered from the switchboard, or perhaps they were just busy), but I'll call them again on the other side of the weekend. In the meantime, still no official word on the internets beyond some guy who supposedly works in the mailroom named "Steve."

Go Jeff-Sessions'-staff-dude, though.

In other news, it's Good Friday and I'll be singing at services later on tonight.
 
 
Mood: happy
Location: The Solarium
 
 
Kelinci Hutan
08 April 2009 @ 02:15 pm
So, I did the Red Envelope day last Tuesday and I've been watching the news since to see if it got covered anywhere. Since the only place I've seen any numbers was in WorldNewsDaily (they say the White House has recieved at least 3.25 million red envelopes and that they're still coming in). WND is not the most reliable source, so I have gone looking for more official confirmation.

I called the White House switchboard and got referred to the Comments line. I called Mike Rogers office (mostly in case they could suggest someone better to call) and they suggested I call the White House. I called Richard Shelby's office and got a busy signal (apparently call waiting is not Senator Shelby's platform). I called Jeff Sessions office and left a message for their "guy who handles these things." Whatever that means. I emailed the White House and heaven knows how long it will take for them to get back to me.

Huh.

I am calling the switchboard tomorrow and asking for the Communications Office. I'll see if that one goes any better.
 
 
Mood: determined
Music: Batman - one of the many