Political chameleon @WendyDavisTexas softens on 20 wk abortion ban

Flip flops

Perhaps Ms. Davis should consider wearing flip flops next time she attempts a filibuster …

Well, she’s flip flopping on everything else, so why not her signature issue, too? The Dallas Morning News reports:

Wendy Davis said Tuesday that she would have supported a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, if the law adequately deferred to a woman and her doctor.

Davis, a Fort Worth senator and the likely Democratic nominee for governor, told The Dallas Morning News’ editorial board that less than one-half of 1 percent of Texas abortions occur after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Most of those were in cases where fetal abnormalities were evident or there were grave risks to the health of the woman.

“I would line up with most people in Texas who would prefer that that’s not something that happens outside of those two arenas,” Davis said.

But the Democrat said the state’s new abortion law didn’t give priority to women in those circumstances. The law allows for exceptions for fetal abnormalities and a threat to the woman’s life, but Davis said those didn’t go far enough.

“My concern, even in the way the 20-week ban was written in this particular bill, was that it didn’t give enough deference between a woman and her doctor making this difficult decision, and instead tried to legislatively define what it was,” Davis said.

Uhhhm, what? NRO’s Charles C.W. Cooke tries to make sense of it:

Sure, this is only a sort of “I support this.” And, in truth, her position doesn’t make much sense. But that the great hope of the abortion movement has been reduced to saying something like this at all is news in and of itself. Where has the great lion of “reproductive justice” gone?

As I noted last week, Davis has taken conservative positions on firearms, taxes, education, fracking, and a host of other issues. And now she’s giving ground on her signature song.

Paging Wendy, paging Wendy. Will the real TX state senator Wendy Davis please stand up?  Rouge red tennis shoes optional …

Liberal college “feminists” develop the vapors over nearly-nude male statue

Sleepwalker statue

The ”sleepwalker” statue.
Image via the Boston Globe.

And they say conservative women are fainting couch prudes? Via the Boston Globe (bolded emphasis added by me):

A realistic-looking statue of a man sleepwalking in his underwear near the center of Wellesley College has created a stir among the women on campus, especially as more than 100 students at the all-women’s college signed a petition asking administrators to remove it.

The statue, called Sleepwalker, is part of an art exhibit featuring sculptor Tony Matelli at the college’s Davis Museum. The exhibit, New Gravity, features sculptures that are often reversed, upended or atomized.

However, the statue of the sleepwalker — which is hard to miss in a high-traffic area by both pedestrians and drivers near the campus center — has caused outrage among some students in just one day after its Feb. 3 installation. Zoe Magid, a Wellesley College junior majoring in political science, started a petition on Change.org with other students asking college president H. Kim Bottomly to have the statue removed.

“[T]his highly lifelike sculpture has, within just a few hours of its outdoor installation, become a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault for many members of our campus community,” says the petition. “While it may appear humorous, or thought-provoking to some, it has already become a source of undue stress for many Wellesley College students, the majority of whom live, study, and work in this space.”

Davis Museum director Lisa Fischman wrote on Wellesley College’s official website that the sculpture was meant to evoke response.

[…]

However, Magid said over the phone Tuesday that Fischman’s response failed to address students’ concerns.

“We were really disappointed that she seemed to articulate that she was glad it was starting discussion, but didn’t respond to the fact that it’s making students on campus feel unsafe, which is not appropriate,” Magid said. “We really feel that if a piece of art makes students feel unsafe, that steps over a line.

Really. The pearl-clutching over this at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s all-girls  alma mater  is hysterical.  I thought feminists were supposed to have thicker skin than this?  It’s a statue. A tacky one, but a “piece of art” all the same.   What is it that makes them feel “unsafe”? The fact that the statue is nearly naked or … gasp … that it’s a reminder of  the dreaded “patriarchy”? Either way, grow a pair, ladies.  There are actually much more important, pressing things going on in the world that you might wanna tackle before waxing indignant over a harmless male sculpture.

Just sayin’.

Related – via NRO’s Kevin D. Williamson:  The Feminist Mystique

Sandra Fluke one step closer to running for Waxman’s House seat

Sandra Fluke

Will she or won’t she?

Via Politico:

Women’s rights activist Sandra Fluke has filed paperwork to seek the congressional seat being vacated by the retirement of Rep. Henry Waxman with the local party, but her team says she’s just keeping her options open and hasn’t made any final decisions.

The California Democratic Party lists Fluke’s name as having officially filed with the party to run in the California district of the retiring Democrat. Two other candidates have filed to run and three others are considered potential candidates, according to the party’s site.

But a spokeswoman for Fluke said the move was simply a necessary step if down the line she wants to seek the party’s endorsement and said no final decisions have been made.

[…]

Fluke became famous in 2012 when she was denied the opportunity to testify before a Republican-led congressional panel about contraception, and then Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” on his radio show. She became an icon for the left and advocate for women’s issues.

And – for better or for worse – she has made the most of her time in the spotlight, thanks to the strong support of the DNC and their militant allies in far left “feminist” pro-abortion groups who thrive on painting women as helpless victims who can’t make it without Uncle Sam, the “right” to choose, and “free” birth control.

Oh well, even if she does run and eventually win, at least it won’t be a seat the GOP loses.  Trying to see the silver lining somewhere here …

#PPACT condom billboard at school crosswalk riles Memphis residents

PPACT billboard

Video screen cap via WREG-Memphis.

The dodo birds at Planned Parenthood are at it again, taking their “message” too far by placing a condom billboard at an elementary school crosswalk in Memphis (hat tip):

(Memphis) A Planned Parenthood billboard has only been up a week in one South Memphis neighborhood, but some people there already want it to come down.

They say the billboard, which includes the message “Getting It On Is Free” and a picture of a condom, is too graphic.

“I was shocked. I was appalled that anyone would put up a picture of condom,” said Karen Wallace.

Karen Wallace works at a church nearby and has to drive by the billboard every day.

She said what is worse it’s right next to an elementary school cross walk.

“The graphic was not necessary the message was enough,” said Wallace.

A dad who saw the sign for the first time Thursday agreed and said it’s not something he wants his children to see.

“No! It ain’t nothing to send out to my kids,” said Rickey Munn.

You’d think Planned Parenthood would take into consideration community concerns, right? Wrong:

“A condom is not an explicit image it’s just a piece of latex and children see explicit images all the time on the internet, in commercials and in the movies. We are trying to promote healthy relationships and save lives,” said Ashley Coffield, CEO of Planned Parenthood Memphis.

[…]

It plans to put some more billboards in the spring.

A few of things here: First, if you think there’s no way in the world Planned Parenthood (and other “progressive types) would target kids in their approach to so-called “safe sex” information, read here , here,and here for your wake-up call. Second, for “enlightened” types who think this is much ado about nothing, y’all do know this is a bit different than just demanding that someone who is offended change the channel, right? Thirdly, consider the “Getting It On” Planned Parenthood campaign, the “Brosurance” campaign put on by left wing activists that basically portrayed women as sex addicts who should sign up for Obamacare, and then review Mike Huckabee’s “controversial” comments from a couple of weeks ago about how Democrats view women:

“Republicans don’t have a war on women,” Huckabee said. We’re having a war for women. To empower them to be something other than victims of their gender.”

“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it,” he continued. “Let us take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.”

Huckabee’s quote was deliberately distorted by helpful MSM journos who later had to issue corrections,  but that didn’t stop the Usual Suspects on the left from conveniently once again trotting out the “helpless victim” card, accusing Huckabee of continuing the phony “war on women” when it was obvious he was criticizing Democrats for how they treat women.  That Democrats got so defensive and had to misdirect and misrepresent what was actually said proves that they know there is more than a grain of truth to Huckabee’s remarks – and the “Brosurance” ads and PPACT campaigns about “Getting It On” just go to show that he was right on target.

PHOTO FAIL: @WendyDavisTexas receives Ann Richards’ shotgun

Wendy Davis

Ms. Davis strikes out. Again.

Just in case you hadn’t heard enough news about Wendy Davis over the last couple of weeks, I thought I would be kind enough to let you know this happened (hat tip to Twitchy Team):


The Austinist provides context:

At a fundraiser for the Travis County Democratic Party last night, Clark Richards, son of former Democratic Texas governor Ann Richards, bequeathed Wendy Davis with his late mother’s engraved shotgun ..

[…]

Davis reportedly promised to “kick some ass with it.”

Based on that picture I’d have to say … um .. no. As Texan Bryan Preston notes:

Greg Abbott also had no trouble with [pulling off the effective shotgun shot] on this Texas Monthly cover.

TX AG Greg Abbott

Nice.

I’d say the Texas AG wins the “battle of the bad a** pictures” hands down – just as I suspect will happen in the eventual TX Governor election should he and Ms. Davis become its respective nominees.

Next?

Related: Via Jonah Goldberg – The Cowardice of Wendy Davis (h/t Phineas)

#SOTU: It’s time to stop the “equal pay for equal work” lie…

Facts

Facts matter.

Independent Women’s Forum managing director Carrie Lukas tackles the oft-told-by-liberals lie that there is a “wage gap” between what women earn and what men earn for “equal work”:

Yet they [liberals] are behind the curve in using a statistic that is increasingly acknowledged as misleading. As feminist writer Hanna Rosin wrote about the 77-cent statistic in Slate:

I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case.

She goes on to describe – as those of us on the right have countless times before – that it’s the different choices men and women make (hours spent working, industry, fields of specialty, time spent out of the workforce, etc.) that are the primary drivers of the wage gap.

We can all debate why it is that women and men make such different choices, and whether that in itself is a problem society ought to seek to solve. Yet it would be nice if first we could all agree to stop misleading Americans by repeating this statistic and pretending that the 23-cent wage gap is evidence of rampant workplace sexism. Mainstream journalists are moving in that direction; it would be nice if the president’s speechwriters would catch on.

I wish we could put this argument to rest because it has been consistently debunked over and over again but who cares about the truth when you’re trying to – almost literally – buy the women’s vote via emotional manipulation by repeating again and again the same false information about their wages in comparison to their male co-workers?  It’s bad enough when Democrat politicos keep uttering this nonsense, but the mainstream media also accepts the assertion as “fact” as this CNN piece demonstrates (hat tip):

Working women and their struggles will form a major part of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, CNN has learned, underscoring the important role women play both in Obama’s domestic agenda and his party’s hopes for this year’s midterm elections.

During his speech, Obama will call for an end to the wage gap between men and women. On average, women earn 77 cents to every dollar a man makes in the workplace

See? Just repeated without questioning, without analyzing. No attempt made at all by CNN to determine whether or not what the President says is factually accurate. Can’t say that I’m surprised, but it’s frustrating nevertheless.

We’ve also seen this same type of shameless pandering from Democrats when it comes to “let’s raise the minimum wage!” arguments.  Do liberals (and their allies in the press) never learn?

No, Wendy Davis isn’t being “attacked for being a single mother”

Author and New America Foundation program director Liza Mundy penned a piece for Politico Magazine that reads like something out of the pages of the NOW playbook.  The headline in and of itself summarizes it all:

Wendy Davis

Spinsanity: ”Wendy Davis did make a mistake. She thought that we were ready for a single mother.”

If the headline wasn’t bad – and faulty – enough, there were paragraphs like this one (bolded emphasis added by me):

Given that winning political office requires help, it was probably a mistake for Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator who is now running for governor, to insist quite so ardently that she got where she did through her own pluck and determination. Davis, a Democrat who rose to national prominence during a dramatic filibuster of a restrictive abortion bill in the Texas legislature last year, is now campaigning for her state’s highest office on a life story that has her rising from humble beginnings through “hard work and optimism,” as she told NBC, then pursuing higher education, as her campaign website says, with “the help of academic scholarships, student loans, and state and federal grants.” Now that she is in a high-profile and hotly partisan race, it has come out that she also benefited from the moral and financial support of her second (now ex) husband, Jeff Davis. In the process, though, behavior we would expect and hardly notice in a man is being portrayed as freakish and problematic in a woman.

This is so far from the truth and reality that it almost defies logic. And unfortunately, this interpretation is making the rounds among some writers I respect, like Democrat Kirsten Powers.   Let’s clear up any misunderstanding/spin that exists out there over why conservatives and Republicans have jumped on this story: it’s because she made her life story her campaign story and .. well, she lied about it - as I wrote earlier this week:

Quite frankly, I could have done without knowing the details of Wendy Davis’ relationship and eventual divorce from her ex-husband, and seeing as I don’t know them and wasn’t in the situation, I’m not going to make a judgement call on whether or not it was the right thing to do for her to leave her children with her ex-husband after the divorce so she could ‘find herself.’  What bothers me about these details is that they are in direct conflict with the “going it alone, running against the wind, paid my way through college while single-handedly raising a family” compelling story she tells when she tours the media and campaign circuit.    In contrast to the narrative she and the MSM  have enabled, she had plenty of financial support – especially while at Harvard – and had someone who could take care of the kids while she found her way in the world.   Not a lot of women can make that same claim. In fact, I suspect many of the people – men and women – who attended Harvard at the same time Wendy Davis did are STILL paying off their student loans because they had to work, possibly more than one job, and still come home and tend to family. Her then-husband took out a loan to pay for her Harvard education and took care of the kids while she was away, and did so even after they were divorced. This is not what Wendy Davis  has told people on the trail.

When I think of a single mother overcoming the odds I think of one who really does struggle – and there are many out there whose story matched the initial “going it alone” one Wendy Davis told but which don’t match the actual “she had a lot of help” version, the one she barely ever talked about even in the abstract.  Wendy Davis tried to gain traction with female voters – in particular ones who really did have to go it alone in life with their children for whatever reason  – by insinuating she can relate to those who had to put themselves through school without any help from anyone.  She had help. A lot of it. A husband with a six figure salary and a nice 401k to draw from. And who took care of her children when she left for Harvard.  Nothing wrong with that – except for the fact that she wasn’t up front with voters about it.

Not only that, but worse – she’s used her “single motherhood” story to advance her belief that abortion is ok.  Some women get pregnant by accident, you see, and it would be awfully tough financially to raise that child – especially if she already has other mouths to feed – so abortion should be an option, according to Wendy Davis, to “take care of” that inconvenient “issue.”

There are so many layers to why what she’s said and done on the campaign trail about her life story was so wrong, and it has nothing – zip, zilch, nada – about the fact that people weren’t and aren’t willing to “accept a single mother” in public office.  Wendy Davis painted herself as a long struggling single mother before we knew the full story, and many of us – including me, and even TX Governor Perry – picked up on that story of struggling single motherhood as one of inspiration, noting that, in contrast as to how she was using it to advance the pro-choice narratives about single women and abortion, that she could use it to inspire women thinking about terminating their unborn child’s life to instead  make the choice to have the baby – that the odds could be overcome with hard work and the determination to succeed.  Many of us – people who supported her and people like me who don’t – went with what she said and took her at face value, and didn’t once think the single mother issue was even an issue at all.

With that in mind, it’s fascinating that the defenders of Ms. Davis over the Dallas Morning News story are doing so on the basis that the right “can’t accept” a single mother in office – in spite of the fact that the story written about Ms. Davis didn’t really portray her as a single mother at all.   What’s at issue here is that “the right” can’t accept a woman – single or not – using an embellished tale about struggling single motherhood in order to try and “relate” to and win over women who really have had a tough road raising their kids by themselves. And “the right” especially can’t accept a woman who uses that same embellished story to argue that it’s ok in those situations to have an abortion.

As to Kirsten Powers assertion that Davis is being held to a standard “no man” would “ever” be held to,  she does remember how Barack Obama was elected to the US Senate, right?

No, Ms. Davis is not a “victim” of the “misogynist right.” Ms. Davis is a victim of her own contradictory words coming back to bite her thanks to – gasp – actual scrutiny, for a change, from a mainstream media journalist unwilling to accept at face value her narrative about her life story.  If only we’d had more such journos back during the 2007-2008 Democrat presidential primary season …

Obama issues mind-numbingly contradictory statement on #RoeAt41

Obama confused

Duh.

Let’s play “spot the contradiction”, shall we?

President Obama issued a statement today on the 41st anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision by expressing his continued commitment to being one of the most radically far leftist Presidents on this issue in American history.  Here’s the statement in full (hat tip):

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.  We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.  And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.  Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

Ummm .. did you catch that?  The President “reaffirms” the “right” of a woman to terminate her unborn developing child for any reason she sees fit because … “this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.”

Except for the innocent unborn apparently.

Honestly, who writes this bleeping garbage? He probably doesn’t even understand it most of the time. His statement actually ended up being one of a pro-life nature, and he probably doesn’t even realize it. Absolutely unreal.

From pro-abortion to pro-life: My #MarchForLife thoughts on #RoeAt41

(reposted from last year)

First, I’d like to say that I hate that the anniversary of this decison, which gave women the ‘right’ to terminate their pregnancy(ies), is on my birthday.

Second, abortion is an issue I find hard to talk about – not because I’m afraid to talk about it (I got over that long ago) but because it is an incredibly painful issue for me to discuss. Not that I’m alone in that; I’m sure it’s tough for a lot of people, mainly male and female pro-lifers, to discuss because of the moral issues, the visual images we’ve all seen of aborted babies, and the deep emotional commitment pro-lifers have towards saving the lives of the unborn. The pain for me is that, but also the knowledge that as a young woman finding my way in life, I once advocated the ‘continued right’ for pregnant women to abort their unborn babies. There are fiercely strong elements of both guilt and shame inside me over my old beliefs about abortion, so strong that I can’t write or talk about the issue without being overcome with emotion. I simply cannot forgive myself that I, in my own small way, contributed to the culture of death at one point in my life. It is something I continue to have to work through, not just as a Christian, but as a human being, because you don’t have to be a Christian to understand that abortion is morally reprehensible.

On the other hand, having been on the ‘other side’ of the issue at one time helps me, I think, in being able to give a more understandable and (hopefully) believable insight into the mind of someone who is (in my case once was) pro-abortion, but before I get started, I’d like to acknowledge that I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but the people I most often debate the issue with are those who are militant and unreasonable, and who make easily debunkable arguments, which I’ll explain in depth below.

The word “abortion” alone speaks volumes about the procedure, and you can best believe that over the years pro-abortion forces in groups such as NARAL and NOW have sought to reframe the debate by preferring to use Photo courtesy of Kurt Rogers/SF Chronicle the term “pro-choice” more and more rather than “pro-abortion” (Example 1 and Example 2). There is a reason for this, which is evident when you analyze the word “abortion” itself. The word “abort” means to “stop” or “terminate” something and in the case of “abortion” what exactly are we “stopping” or ‘terminating”? Pro-abortionists don’t want you to consider this aspect of the argument because they’d have to admit that you were “stopping” or “terminating” the very maturation of a little life – a human life – where we all began. Thus the attempt at reframing the debate by claiming they are ‘pro-choice’ (or ‘pro reproductive freedom’) rather than ‘pro-abortion.’ They want you to believe it’s not about a ‘aborting a life’ but instead ‘making a choice.’ Right.

The attempt at reshaping the debate by using less inflammatory words is a common tactic of the pro-abortion crowd. Oftentimes when debating abortion I’ll come across a staunch abortion advocate who will insist that it’s not a baby in a pregnant woman’s womb but a “blob of tissue” or “parasite” or “leech.” I wrote this last October regarding the changing of terms we use when discussing unborn babies or humans in a PVS, and I think it’s worth repeating today:

Viewing unborn children as a parasites is very similar to viewing patients in a persistent vegetative state as a vegetables. It’s a way to take the human aspect of the issue out of the equation. When you don’t view something as a human, it’s easier to justify your support of taking its life. Dr. Yacov Tabak, who helped provide the best care for his wife Marsi, who was diagnosed as being in a PVS in 1997, explains:

Dr. Tabak couldn’t bear the term “vegetable” when it was first presented to him, and since the Terri Schiavo ruling, says that some in the medical community have shown an ulterior, ugly side regarding this appellation. “There is a medical agenda with this term” Dr. Tabak contends. “It’s very difficult to get emotionally involved with a vegetable. To have a relationship with a carrot goes against human nature.

And to have a relationship with a ‘parasite’ goes against human nature, too. Viewing an unborn child as a mere pesky parasite makes it sound, to pro-abortionists, so much more ‘justifiable’ to terminate.

There are conflicting studies out there which show on one hand that ‘most’ women who have abortions are not emotionally scarred by it and feel relieved once it’s done, while others show that having an abortion scars a woman for life, some more so than others. The truth is somewhere in between, but make no mistake about it, the decision to have an abortion is not one that most women make in a snap. They think about it and agonize over it, and there’s a reason they agonize over it: because deep inside, they know it’s wrong. Last October, I blogged about a hospital in the UK that was discovered to have thrown aborted babies into the same incinerator they used to get rid of trash, which outraged not only pro-life groups, but some of the women who had abortions there, who thought it was a horrible way for their baby to be dispensed with, which tells you about how torn women who have abortions are between doing what’s right (keeping the child) versus doing what is convenient (aborting them) and the guilt which eats at them later. Women are reassured prior to the abortion that their unborn child will be buried or dispensed of ‘with dignity’ but why worry about the dignity of the child when you didn’t want it to begin with? If you’ve made the choice to abort your child, you have little room to complain when you find out how it’s been disposed of, but all the same the thought that women could be horrified to find out something like that happened to their unborn baby after they aborted it shows that they know deep down that what they did was wrong to begin with.

The hypocrisy involved in pro-abortion arguments is so obvious that it amazes me that pro-abortionists can make them with a straight face, but make them they do and they’ve gotten away with it for years. For example, you frequently hear and read pro-abortionists exclaim “the government has no business in my sex life” yet these same people advocate that the government does get involved in your sex life, especially if you’re poor and don’t have the money to get an abortion. Then they’re ok with the government getting involved in your sex life – specifically involved in your choosing to terminate the result of your irresponsible sexual behavior via a state-funded abortion. Never ever let a pro-abortionist convince you that they don’t want the government involved in your sex life – they most certainly do. If they didn’t want government involved in your sex life, then they wouldn’t support continued state-funded abortions, and they wouldn’t advocate government-approved sex education in the public school system. When pro-abortionists say they don’t want the government involved in your sex life, what they’re really saying is they don’t want the government telling you that if you choose to be sexually irresponsible with your body, that there can be serious consequences for your behavior. What they want the government to do is to essentially condone your behavior by paying for your abortion, or paying for your child to be able to eat and have a roof over his head.

Another hypocritical position pro-abortionists take is the one where they claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ which would be laughable if the issue itself wasn’t so serious. How on earth can you claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ when you encourage women to feel free to engage in sex with whoever whenever? Whether they are protected from disease and pregnancy or not, it is not – I repeat – not responsible to routinely engage in casual sex, whether you are a man or a woman. Respect for your body comes not in seeing how many people you can share it with, but saving it for the person with whom you intend to share your life. That is the real way to engage in ‘responsible sexual behavior’, not giving in to your every sexual urge with everyone you’re attracted to. Not only that, but with each new partner, you increase your chances of getting an STD, and/or either getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant, and as a result may have to rely on the government to either pay for your abortion, your child, and/or your healthcare. How is that ‘responsible’? You simply do not promote sexual responsibility by giving the green light to engage in frequent casual sex. Taking disease and pregnancy out of the equation does not make frequent casual sex any more responsible. Furthermore, pro-abortionists in feminist groups like NARAL and NOW betray their ‘responsiblity’ argument by routinely blaming the man for everything that happened. Check out some of these bumper stickers on the NOW website:

Against Abortion? Wear a Condom, Dude! $2.00

[…]

Against Abortion? Have a Vasectomy! $2.00

[…]

Not Every Sperm Needs a Name $2.00

These hypocrites also have the nerve to claim that they are pro-family! I don’t think I have to explain the absurdity of such an argument.

Also, you’ll find that most staunch pro-abortionists are the same people who will chain themselves to a tree in order to protect it or launch a campaign to ‘save the whales’ – it’s bizarre that they put more importance on life that is not human than life which is.

Photo of 10 week old baby courtesy of David Barlow/National Geographic's In the Womb seriesProbably the biggest logical fallacy involved in pro-abortion arguments is that the baby growing inside a woman’s body is supposedly not yet human because it couldn’t sustain life outside of the womb. I find it beyond comprehension that one pregnant woman’s 2 week old child is another woman’s 2 week old ‘blob of tissue.’ I find it even more incomprehensible that women who have had children can remain ‘pro-choice’, considering they’re not ignorant about when their son or daugther’s life started. It’s either a child or it’s not. In actuality, we really don’t get to decide: once that child is conceived that’s what it is: a child. Why there is a debate about this is beyond me, because every single one of us, whether on the pro-life side or pro-abortion side, started off as a ‘blob of tissue.’ Thank goodness that our mothers didn’t view at us the way pro-abortionists look at pregnancy today, eh? A question pro-abortionists are reluctant to answer is: “In retrospect, would you have been in favor of your mother aborting you or your brother or sister when you or they were just ‘blobs of tissue’ if she had wanted to?” It’s easy for them to be pro-abortion when they don’t have to consider the possibility that they or one of their beloved family members could have been aborted at their mother’s ‘choosing.’

President Reagan once famously said: “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” Timely then, and timely now.

My hope is that anyone who reads this and who considers themselves pro-abortion will revisit and reconsider why they believe in the ‘right’ to abort a child. I know people can change their views on abortion: I certainly did, and I don’t regret it for a minute. There is a lot of hypocrisy and senselessness involved in pro-abortion arguments. I know, because I used to make them.

More: Let’s take a look at a typical method of abortion, known as the D&E abortion, as described by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. This is what they describe as the ‘safest’ method of abortion and they perform them on unborn babies up to 18.6 weeks gestation (emphasis added):

You return to clinic on the day of your procedure. Before the procedure is started, a needle will be inserted in your vein and will stay there during the time you are in the clinic. Once the needle is in place, all the medications that you need will be given through it. These medications may include drugs to help you relax and reduce discomfort.

If used, the gauze and dilators will be removed. The doctor will give you a local anesthetic (numbing medicine) in your cervix, which will make the procedure more comfortable. The opening of the uterus may need to be stretched more, which will be done gradually with a series of narrow instruments called dilators, each a little larger than the one before. When the cervix is open wide enough, a plastic tube will be inserted into the uterus and is connected to a suction machine. The content of the uterus will then be removed by a combination of suction and instruments, usually taking 5-15 minutes. During and after the procedure, you may feel cramping as the uterus shrinks down to its normal size. The doctor then may do a final check with a spoon shaped instrument called a curette. Later, the doctor will examine the pregnancy tissue to check whether it has been removed completely.

Isn’t it sick the way they describe what’s in the uterus as the “contents” of the uterus or “pregnancy tissue”, rather than a fetus? This is what a fetus at 18 weeks gestation looks like (more here). Some “blob of tissue”!

Prior/Related: