E-Mail 'Feminist Mob Rule, not the filibuster, defeated Texas' pro-life #SB5' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Feminist Mob Rule, not the filibuster, defeated Texas' pro-life #SB5' to a friend

Loading ...

11 Responses to "Feminist Mob Rule, not the filibuster, defeated Texas’ pro-life #SB5"

Drew the Infidel says:

June 26, 2013 at 7:24 pm

If this bunch of wackos think they have put one over on Gov. Perry, they are more stupid than they appear. Hide and watch. It is incomprehensible they could find time to expend the effort to make public fools of themselves in this endeavor but not stage a legitimate and worthy venture at the Gosnell proceedings.
Ike says:

June 26, 2013 at 10:37 pm

One of the problems with this kind of situation isn’t being talked about. If the Senate of Texas does not arrange for sufficient law enforcement personnel to be present in order that they can conduct the public business without being stopped by people like this, it will cause a back-lash. Suppose: no effective law enforcement handling of these demonstrators next time and therefore no bill is passed; right-wing folks – in Texas, not as polite as most back east and on the West Coast, generally speaking – right wing folks may very well show up in large numbers and physically oppose the screamers of the left-wing. Won’t that be just swell? Unless the authorities use appropriate levels of force to deal with folks like those who disrupted the Texas Senate last night, we will have an unofficial “veto” of legislation by whatever group can bus in enough smelly loud-mouthed slugs to interrupt the legislative process. That will not go over very well in Texas. This next emergency session will tell the tale. Who controls the government of Texas? The people who voted office-holders into office or a bunch of screaming demonstrators? If the answer is the second group of folks, you’re going to see some serious problems in Texas as the people take the bull by the horns and do what the politicians don’t have the cojones to do.
Mike Giles says:

June 27, 2013 at 1:55 pm

Couple of points here, since the sixties, the Left has piggy backed themselves onto the justified – and non violent – demonstrations of the Civil Rights movement as a useful tool. But they forgot the non violent portion, and have, in effect, turned themselves into nothing more than the lynch mobs of the pre Civil Rights era. Funny thing is, I doubt if the even recognize it, caught up as they are in the belief in their own righteousness. And they subscribe to every other demonstration the disruptive violence, they subscribe to. That’s one of the reasons they keep referring to the Tea Party as “violent”; they’re really incapable of seeing any large gathering as anything other than an excuse for mob violence.
Persephone says:

June 28, 2013 at 8:09 am

This is a very biased article. Feminists do not “despise” babies, dearie. We simply do not believe politicians should make our medical decisions for us without having the title “doctor”. How dare you judge any woman who is thinking of abortion. Do you know her circumstances? ‘Course not. If you actively fight to protect a bundle of cells but not the thousands of children living below the poverty line, you’re pro-birth, not pro-life. Learn the difference before you spew ignorance.
Nicky says:

June 28, 2013 at 8:37 am

Well first of all, yes, vacuum suction is a lot more safe and humane than having a coat hanger inserted up your vagina to hopefully not kill or maim you while an inexperienced back-alley “surgeon” fishes around with it.

Good job trying to explain the process in as traumatic and gory a fashion as possible, but it still pales dramatically in comparison with a coat-hanger abortion; why don’t you describe one of those, and the deaths that tend to result, and then consider whether the alternative of safe and legal abortions is important for people to have access to?

Also, you should note that there is no provision made anywhere in that law for rape. You want to talk about “violent behavior”? There are few behaviors more violent than rape, and then to get to spend nine months reliving that trauma every day as your rapist’s child grows inside you? Well I’m sure that is great for a person’s already assaulted mental and physical well-being, so why should rape victims be treated like human beings whose lives are worthwhile? After all, if they were worthwhile people, they wouldn’t have been raped in the first place, right? I’m not suggesting you believe any such horrific thing of course–just pointing out that this proposed law that you claim to support presumes thus by its refusal to consider their lives.

Something for you to consider, perhaps.

(I realize of course that this disagreeable comment will never be posted; but I am hoping that you will at least read it, and that’s something. Thanks for your time.)
Abby says:

June 28, 2013 at 9:51 am

Oh, dear. Feminists do not despise babies. Feminists believe that women should have the rights to choose what they want to do with their bodies. I am a feminist. I don’t think I will ever get an abortion, but I don’t think men in the government should choose what is “right” for women without any sort of medical degree. Feminists want women to have rights to choose what they want to do with their bodies. There is a difference between “pro-life” and “pro-birth.” Over one million CHILDREN live on the streets. Would you rather a small mass of tissue be taken out of a woman’s body in the most humane way possible, or a grown child suffering in dangerous alleyways. Conservatives need to get over their love affair with fetuses and focus on our children.
Bean says:

June 28, 2013 at 11:37 am

No worries about rape Nicky: When Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, called for an exemption for women who were victims of rape and incest, Rep. Jody Laubenberg, R-Parker, explained why she felt it was unnecessary.

“In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out.”

This is the bill’s sponsor? What kind of country has big government dummies like her making laws for the rest of us?
Scott says:

June 28, 2013 at 12:12 pm

Wow… ok.. read the comments above. First, the gory details provided are from the procedural information… I think the author did a great job NOT being gory, so that argument is moot. Point of fact: First, I am a single FULL time father of two daughters. my views on abortion are my own, and its my job to inform my daughters what their options are, and my feelings on the matter. I happen to be Pro-Life, but as i explained to them, it’s their body, their choice. However, they know my feelings on the subject. Second… the argument that I have no say is also moot… you are asking me to fund it, but to shut up. not going to happen. I didn’t ask to be part of the conversation, but I’m force to be part of the conversation because you want to use Tax money to pay for it. You want me out of the womb, get out of my wallet. Lastly, this is a Republic. Always has been, always will be if I have any say, and as a citizen I do. If you don’t like the governmental process, change it. To me, if the time frame passed without a vote, its a done deal. however, if the time frame passed without a vote due to OUTSIDE interference, then the rule of law and the rule of the people have been subverted. if your argument can stand on its merits without subverting either is true and just, then let it stand. If it wins, good for you. If it loses, then try again… its your right. but let the process run as it was designed. If you have to use subterfuge to win your argument, then your argument is flawed.

My last comment is this: I don’t think government has a roll in this, never did. I think taking this to an “all or nothing” war of attrition is the wrong tactic, and is doomed to failure… and please keep in mind, a war of attrition is Victory for some. Find alternatives. And please understand this – as a conservative with some liberal values, you are losing me with these tactics… the more foolish and ridiculous the arguments get, the stronger my resolve to resist the stupidity at all costs.
ST says:

June 28, 2013 at 12:17 pm

As usual, “feminists” demonstrate the sheer, brutal moral depravity of their callous positions much better than I ever could. By all means, please continue.
Jill F. says:

June 28, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Pro-Abortion folks keep saying “bundle of cells”, “small mass of tissue” and other euphemisms for the life growing in a womb.
Kinda reminds me of “monkey’s uncle”, and “not really human” – euphemisms for African people who were bought and sold as slaves.
I guess you use the language that helps you sleep at night, right?
Great White Rat says:

June 28, 2013 at 11:08 pm

Looks like some leftist sites have sent some of their minions over here. So let’s have a little dialog, shall we?

First, why are all these abortion proponents so anti-science? Medical science has provided us the ability to see life in utero in jaw-dropping detail. The abortion lobby on the Left is reflexive in its desire to deny the obvious and to keep the women in their clinics ignorant of the facts. It’s as if they have a religious dedication to abortion. It’s like a sacrament to them. Instead of acknowledging the scientific evidence, they’ll give you ignorant references like Persephone’s “bundle of cells”, or Abby’s “small mass of tissue”.

Here’s the thing the pro-abortion types are missing: personal responsibility. Take responsibility for the child you helped create? No thanks, we’d rather kill it. But what Persephone and Abby don’t appear to understand is that there’s a simple way to avoid that decision completely. There’s no shortage of contraceptive devices out there, and no one is stopping you from using them. But if you’re going to go all Sandra Fluke on us and demand that someone else pay for it (there’s that aversion to personal responsibility again), then there’s another guaranteed way to avoid conceiving: keep your knees together and your pants on. And best of all, it’s free, just like your Obamaphone.

As for the whining about “thousands of children living below the poverty line”, people have had a solution for that for thousands of years: don’t have a kid if you can’t afford one. Oh, but then that would require responsibility again, so of course you can’t relate to that. But don’t think for a second you can pull some kind of guilt trip, as if it’s our fault that those kids are out there. Anyone who says that if we don’t let her kill her kid we’ll have to pay to raise it has permanently and monumentally forfeited the moral high ground.

But Persephone does present an interesting suggestion: killing children in order to save the money needed to raise them. With that in mind, let me offer a modest proposal: How about we simply shoot every third person who’s collecting welfare benefits? It’s really just Persephone’s idea, except the bullets will be even cheaper than paying Dr. Gosnell.

Now, Abby wants men completely out of the abortion decision. She thinks it should be entirely up to the woman whether to have the abortion; the father should have absolutely no say in it because it is, as she puts it, the “rights to choose what they want to do with their bodies” (and also the child’s body, but Abby doesn’t care about that). Of course, as Scott noted, if the woman decides to have the baby, then the father is on the hook to pay for it for the next 18 years or more. The way the law is now, if the woman wants to kill the baby and the father doesn’t, tough for him. And if the mother wants to have the baby and the father doesn’t, again, tough for him. So in the interest of “fairness”, let’s do this: If the father doesn’t want to have the baby, let’s give him the legal right to absolve himself of any financial responsibility for the child. Just sign a document and it’s done. And to make it especially fair, let’s set a time limit equal to the time limit when the mother can abort. If it’s 20 weeks, then at week 21 he loses the right to sign. If (as I’m sure Abby wants it) there is no time limit and partial birth abortions are permitted, then he can decide to sign right up to the moment the kid is born. That way, the men have no say in the abortion decision, but the women has no right to force the man to be a father. How about that, Abby? Fair enough for you? Or are you less a feminist than anti-male?

As for Nicky, your note’s less objectionable that the other two, but you make it sound like the only option to legally sanctioned murder is the coat-hanger route, and that wasn’t even common during the pre-Roe days. You’re doing exactly what you accuse ST of doing: presenting the alternative “as traumatic and gory a fashion as possible”, even if it’s an unrealistic scenario.

Two other items: First, I actually agree with Nicky on rape. There should be provisions for termination in cases of rape/incest. And the woman will know well before 20 weeks or so if the pregnancy resulted from either of those, so the time limit isn’t a factor there. Second, don’t be surprised that your comment wasn’t deleted. This isn’t a leftist operation like MoveOn or DU or LGF where anything that doesn’t agree 100% with management never sees the light of day. Besides, as ST pointed out, letting the liberals sound off all they want is a perfect way to show how misguided they are.

Comments are closed.