A couple of days ago, pro-life blogger Jill Stanek documented three stories, posted at a pro-abortion blog, of women in the comments section who had had abortions for birth control reasons who were completely unashamed of them. If you’ve ever wanted to read a little more in depth as to what a classic narcissistic uber-liberal feminist sounds like, you’ve got it right there. One of them had three abortions. And here it was I thought the left was, courtesy of their precious sex education classes in junior and senior high school, so much more educated than us backwater conservatives about the dangers of having unprotected sex to the point that little “accidents” like pregnancy just didn’t happen to them.
It’s interesting because so often you hear liberals – like our pro-choice President, for example (who, BTW, is an extremist on the issue) – describe the decision to have an abortion as a “painful” one that is “not made lightly,” but the reality is that most abortions are done for convenience purposes, not for “life of the mother/health of the baby” reasons, and if they are so “painful” and are not “made lightly” then the stories like Stanek documented would be practically non-existent.
Reliable statistics on abortions are sometimes hard to come by, because pro-abortion forces do not want you to know the extent of their callousness and cruelty to the unborn via their vigilant, militant advocacy of “abortion on demand,” but what we do know is that in most instances, women have abortions because they simply don’t want a child interfering with their life at the time of their pregnancy. They might be in college, or have just landed a great job, or may be in a situation where they don’t want to be single and pregnant – perhaps because they don’t think they can handle the responsibility on their own financially or emotionally or both.
These are, of course, unacceptable excuses for terminating the life of a child whose heartbeat can be heard at 6 weeks:
And for those who do agonize over the decision to have a convenience abortion? There can only be one explanation: They damn well know it’s morally wrong on so many levels. Otherwise, why agonize over what pro-abortionists describe as a merely a “blob of tissue,” a “parasite“?
And while on the topic of the heartbeats of the unborn, you have to love the way the NYT described an abortion law in Oklahoma that was recently struck down by a district court judge (via Ken Shepard):
HOUSTON — A day after a judge struck down an Oklahoma law requiring women seeking an abortion to see an ultrasound of the fetus and listen to a description of its attributes, the state said it would appeal the ruling, and Republican lawmakers vowed to pass the law again in a different form.
While advocates of abortion rights celebrated the victory in court, they acknowledged the fight against one of the most sweeping anti-abortion laws in the country was likely to continue for months in the Legislature and before the State Supreme Court.
“Anti-abortion” law? While it’s true that the law is designed to get a woman who goes in for an abortion to have second thoughts – and possibly change her mind – about aborting her unborn child, I wouldn’t call it “anti-abortion.” More like “pro-choice.” You’re shown the ultrasound, and given the choice during the ultrasound as to whether or not you still want to go through with the abortion. Horrors.
Isn’t that what making an “informed choice” is all about? The answer for liberal feminists is a resounding “no,” and the reason is that abortion advocates only want you to be “selectively educated” about the choice you are about to make, because if you don’t know what the baby looks like in your womb, and you don’t hear its heartbeat, then you can convince yourself that it is not a human – and as a result, making the “choice” to abort your unborn child easier. And seriously – have you ever heard uber liberal feminist congratulate a woman on the choice she made to keep her baby?
And speaking of “informed decisions,” I have to take my hat off to celebreality icon Kourtney Kardashian, who recently admitted she’s pregnant and decided to keep her baby after extensive research and soul-searching:
“I definitely thought about it long and hard, about if I wanted to keep the baby or not, and I wasn’t thinking about adoption,” Kardashian, 30, who was shooting E!’s Kourtney & Khloe Take Miami at the time, tells PEOPLE exclusively. “I do think every woman should have the right to do what they want, but I don’t think it’s talked through enough. I can’t even tell you how many people just say, ‘Oh, get an abortion.’ Like it’s not a big deal.”
Scott Disick, the baby’s 26-year-old father, was supportive either way. The pair had split in November after two years of dating, but reconciled shortly after finding out she was pregnant. “He wanted me to talk about it more, but I just kept to myself,” she says. “He said, ‘I really want you to keep it, but I will support you whatever you decide to do.'”
Confused and concerned, Kardashian says, “I called my best friend crying, and I was like, ‘I don’t know what to do.’ She said, ‘Call your doctor, and at least find out the risks and stuff.’ ” So Kardashian discussed abortion with her physician, and then headed to the Internet to do further research.
“I looked online, and I was sitting on the bed hysterically crying, reading these stories of people who felt so guilty from having an abortion,” she recalls. “I was reading these things of how many people are traumatized by it afterwards.”
After scouring the Internet, Kardashian says she started to realize that an abortion wasn’t an option for her. “I was just sitting there crying, thinking, ‘I can’t do that,’ ” she says. “And I felt in my body, this is meant to be. God does things for a reason, and I just felt like it was the right thing that was happening in my life.”
Kardashian says she did some intense soul-searching. “For me, all the reasons why I wouldn’t keep the baby were so selfish: It wasn’t like I was raped, it’s not like I’m 16. I’m 30 years old, I make my own money, I support myself, I can afford to have a baby. And I am with someone who I love, and have been with for a long time.”
Not that rape, being a teenager, or not being financially stable make that unborn child any less of a life, but I’ll take her overall rationale for keeping her baby any day over another woman’s rationale that her college degree was more important than having her baby.
This is absolutely priceless:
Several conservative bloggers, including Hot Air, RedState, and NewsBusters, have taken MSNBC to task for not identifying a man with a gun at an Obama event as an African-American in a segment that discussed the “racial overtones” of those packing heat at presidential town halls.
Following the shot of the African-American man focusing specifically on the gun, MSNBC host Contessa Brewer said that “you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs.”
An MSNBC spokesperson responded to POLITICO: “Contessa was speaking generally and not about that specific person with the automatic weapon.”
MSDNC’s response is a flat out lie. Here’s the actual quote:
A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside, wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. The Associated Press reports about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms. And if the scene looks familiar, that’s because it should, last week a guy stood outside Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with a gun strapped to his leg and police arrested a 62-year-old before that New Hampshire event for carrying unlicensed loaded gun. And the reason we’re talking about this, a lot of talk here, Dylan, because people feel like, yes, there are Second Amendment rights for sure but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs.
Say it with me, now: Lame.
It’s the nightmare photo-op no government official wants to get caught in the middle of:
PARIS — It was apparently just a little summertime spinning with the aid of a grocery chain, but Luc Chatel, the education minister and government spokesman, found himself in some hot water over a supposedly staged visit to a quiet supermarket on Monday.
Journalists accompanying Mr. Chatel and Hervé Novelli, the secretary of state for commerce, on a trip to an Intermarché supermarket in Villeneuve-le-Roi, southeast of Paris, became suspicious when the aisles were suddenly filled with well-dressed, articulate women eager to praise a government freeze on the price of some school supplies before the new school year began.
One of the women was Virginie Meyniel, a local politician allied with the governing center-right party, who said she just happened to be in the store and also happens to help oversee schools for her town, Vulaines-sur-Seine, 30 miles away.
The radio station France Inter raised questions, and the newspaper Libération had a detailed article on Wednesday headlined, “Supercherie au Supermarché,” or “Hoax at the Supermarket.” It described how some of the women left the store together in a car after the minister left, without buying anything and leaving their school supplies in shopping baskets.
Sound like anyone else you know? Of course, the difference is that the French media hates Sarko and will go out of their way to point out the embarassing aspects of his administration accordingly, unlike our own MSM, who believe the President of the United States walks on water.
And the beat goes on.