Punch harder on abortion.

This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’

–Proverbs 30:20

Last month Latest.com ran a story defending abortion with the headline Study: 95 Percent Of Women Feel Relief, Not Sad, After Having Abortions

One of the many arguments against abortion, especially abortions that take place after the first trimester, is that there are lasting, negative psychological effects for the women who have them. Some anti-abortion groups have gone so far as to say that women who regret terminating their pregnancies are actively being “censored.”

However a new study, published in Plos ONE, followed almost 700 women who had abortions as well as a group that were denied abortions for three years. The primary focus of the study was to compare the outcomes of women who had early abortions and those who had them later.

“In crude data, approximately 95% of women completing each follow-up interview reported that having the abortion was the right decision for them…

This is an astounding defense of abortion, and demonstrates an opportunity to punch back much harder.  The argument that abortion is a problem because it makes women sad is foolish.  What we should instead be pointing out is that our embrace of abortion has turned our women into monsters.

95% of women who murder their unborn children (and have them sold for parts) feel good about having done so!  This is what we should be calling out far and wide.  Not only does this call out the profound ugliness of abortion, it will pierce the heretofore shameless.  Women very often appear impervious to shame, but in reality they are terrified of being called out.

Calling this ugliness out will polarize what would otherwise be team woman into two camps:

  1. The larger camp will be the women who wish to distance themselves from something so ugly.
  2. The smaller camp will be the women who try to justify feeling good about killing an unborn child and selling it off for parts*.

Both groups will ultimately make the case against abortion, the first will do so intentionally, and the second will do so unintentionally.

This will also split men into groups, but this grouping will be more dispersed.  However, two groups are worth pointing out:

  1. Pro life white knights will find themselves trying to explain why so many women exercise their “right to choose” against their will.
  2. Pro abortion white knights (along with feminist women in camp 2 above) will feel the need to respond to this argument, setting the record straight that women demand this right and are quite pleased when exercising it.

Both groups will leave themselves open to the observation that they are more concerned with the feelings of the adult who decides to do the killing and selling than the unborn child being killed and sold off for parts.

The resulting dogfight will bewilder most observers, leaving them only remembering the profound ugliness of the image of millions of women delighted with their abortion experience.  Happy customers, unhappy customers, it doesn’t matter;  this is a profoundly ugly business.

*See Amanda Marcotte’s unfavorable comparison of an unborn child to tooth decay for an example of what this will look like.

Edit:  Pukeko has analyzed the study in question and gives his thoughts on the methodology here.

 

This entry was posted in Abortion, Amanda Marcotte, Denial, Motherhood, Solipsism, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

240 Responses to Punch harder on abortion.

  1. rugby11ljh says:

    Lake of fire by tony Kyle is a great film about this.

  2. Boxer says:

    This is an excellent article, Mr. D., and an example of exactly why I love this blog. There’s lots of tactical information for men and women to effectively argue against the feminists.

    One thing I’ve experimented with is talking this same sort of smack to male feminists, conservatives, and other white knight faggots. I’ve experimented with calling these men out for promoting irresponsibility. This is especially effective with atheists and agnostics, as you can segue into how their white-knighting is actually a religious ideal, a holdover from Judaism and Christianity, and how they are actually religious believers without being aware of it. The militant atheist dorks go completely nuts about this.

    “You think that women should ‘have the right to choose’ to kill their kids for convenience sake? You must not think much of women, mate. Women need to be responsible for their choices, or are you some sort of patriarchal oppressor who wants to hold her father responsible? Go back to bible camp, faggot, I only talk to rational men…” etc.

    You guys should try this. The same SJW fag who uses this crap himself will go wild when it’s turned around on him.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  3. Pingback: Punch harder on abortion. | Neoreactive

  4. Pingback: Punch harder on abortion. | Manosphere.com

  5. Oscar says:

    The cult of Molech is alive and well.

  6. Mike says:

    “For women who “perceived community abortion stigma and [had] lower social support” were also more likely to experience negative emotions.”

    Ya think?

    I went to the study itself – http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128832 – looking for better language to hang on them (eg, “happiness” about the abortion). There’s a little of that at least (I didn’t read it all but that word does appear) but what I found interesting is that the first two graphs (rightness of decision and negative emotions) were supported by tables of data. There’s a graph showing positive emotions, but no data (they mention the fact but I didn’t see an explanation).

    It would be irresponsible of me NOT to speculate that the data shows emotions so positive that the researchers foresaw your strategy and hid the best dirt.

  7. Warlock says:

    I (pagan belief system) always thought abortion was a complicated issue. Life of the child vs. rights of the mom. Until I started traveling the world, then I realized that a demand for abortion was actually the symptom of a deeper illness within society.

    In many countries every child is considered an asset, not a burden. So any mom that doesn’t want her baby will give it to a very happy relative or friend. No lawyers or complicated paperwork involved.

    In America, there is both a shortage of adoptable babies and a demand for abortion. Doesn’t this strike anyone as strange? I know a baby in the USA that was barely saved from being aborted, because a lady that was looking to adopt offered the young unwed mom a new car in exchange for the child. The legal argument for the gift was that the young lady needed transportation to get to the hospital, so it was considered a legitimate medical expense. It shouldn’t take a bribe to motivate someone to deal with a bunch of paperwork (this is even hinted at in the movie “Juno”, although our heroine turns down the offer of “extra compensation”).

    The christian community has also increased the demand for abortion through two methods. The first is by ostracizing unwed moms, like the girl that kicked out of my high school for being pregnant. The second is by preventing sex education in high school, even though sex education has been shown to decrease unwanted pregnancies.

    It should be noted that my first child was conceived (and born) because I was not allowed to buy a condom. The local drugstore where I lived was prohibited from carrying condoms because the city elders thought it would encourage sex amongst teenagers. That wasn’t the norm, but it was a sign of the times when I was younger.

  8. Dirk says:

    Personally I’m not sure what anti-abortion rhetoric such as encouraging verbal abuse of women who have had abortions would actually achieve, it seems entirely pointless given the decision has been made. Actually it will give people the chance to demonstrate that, if you think you intrinsically know what’s best for other people then you may have a mental disorder and need help – that would definitely be a good thing.

    Women control their own vaginas and reproduction, no one else does. If you haven’t dealt with that already, maybe it’s time.

  9. Tilikum says:

    I agree. If we can simply animalize humans in the same way Twatter humanized the beast Cecil…
    abortion would be gone like the Confederate flag.

    It’s shocking that pro-abortion folks defend their position by accusing women of the very sociopathy that gets called divisive in the sphere. Remind them of the latent racism inherant to abortion by explaining WHO gets abortions….

  10. embracingreality says:

    If the churchian white knights who think “rescuing” single mothers and their rotten spawn from abortion is heroic would only read their bibles.

    Deuteronomy 22:21 “Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”

    GOD’s law regarding un-wed, non-virginal young women was death. Signs of pregnancy in an un-wed woman would have warranted an abortion under God’s law, abortion of the woman and the unborn child. We’re not living in the old testament but God’s attitude toward sexual sin hasn’t changed. The church has removed ALL shame from being an un-wed mother. This is why churches are filling up with them.

    God instituted abortion! Abortion of un-wed mothers and their un-born children. You can be sure it was a very affective deterrent.

  11. feeriker says:

    Women very often appear impervious to shame, but in reality they are terrified of being called out.

    I seriously doubt that any woman who would publicly and gleefully rejoice in the murder of her own unborn child is susceptible to any form of shame.

  12. @TFH
    I agree completely. Another example of both parties catering to the Feminine Imperative. Neither party has a credible solution to fixing our demographic problems which will eventually cause our economic system to collapse under its own weight.

  13. MarcusD says:

    Report: ISIS Executes 19 Women For Refusing Sex With Terrorists
    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/08/07/report-isis-executes-19-women-for-refusing-sex-with-terrorists/

    Why Office Air Conditioning Is Sexist

  14. Spike says:

    A timely article, Dalrock. I’m thinking of the Centre for Medical Progress’ stings on Planned Parenthood, where PP employees have admitted on camera to a racket of selling tissues of the unborn. The Obama Administration has closed ranks with PP and is going after the whistleblower!

    There should be no excuse for abortion. Women have been in control of the entire sexual process from start to finish. Women have 14 (at last count) types of contraception. They can insist on a condom. They can call off intercourse mid-stream on the call of rape. They have the Morning After Pill. All of these seemingly aren’t enough, so they STILL need abortion.

    One question for women who have had abortions is this: If abortion was “the right decision”, why are they so unhappy about it? Every woman who has had an abortion is. This tells me that deep down, they KNOW they have taken a life despite all Hamsteresque rationalisations.

    Bring on the Male Pill.

  15. Johnycomelately says:

    Punch harder, why?

    “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.”

    “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.”

    “Go and tell this people: Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
    be ever seeing, but never perceiving.”

    If Christians were genuine about abortion they’d adopt them like they did in Rome when they left children to die from exposure.

    Reminds me of the Buddhists in Russia when the missionaries came to convert the ‘heathens’. The Buddhists replied, “If you were like Christ we’d convert immediately but you are drunkards and violent.”

    The medium is the message.

    Christians are full of platitudes and hot air.

  16. >Punch harder, why?

    I can think of about 50,000,000 reasons.

    News flash: Gigantic female hamsters sighted….everywhere. If ever there was an example of the power and ever presence of the Rationalization Hamster in 95% of women who have killed their baby and agreed to sell it’s parts for Lamborghinis.

  17. praetorian says:

    LOL.

    Only on the modern internet we know and love could you have a fucking warlock and a old testament aspie shit posting an otherwise sane blog post.

  18. Pingback: Punch harder on abortion. | Reaction Times

  19. mmaier2112 says:

    A hard-hearted woman once told me she did nothing wrong in aborting her child and was indignant that someone that knew about it judged her for it.

    And yet… wanted everyone around to mourn her miscarriages.

    Disconnect much?

  20. Boxer says:

    A hard-hearted woman once told me she did nothing wrong in aborting her child and was indignant that someone that knew about it judged her for it.

    In this world we all need to judge. Judging keeps us alive and solvent. It’s imperative that we all use our very best judgment, in fact.

    With few exceptions, most abortions are not to “save the life of the mother” or the result of “violent rape” or these other outliers. They’re simply convenience killings by people who are too stupid to use any of the five hundred methods of birth control that are given away, at no/low cost, to all cummers. These wimminz are too stupid even to think past what feels good right now. They can’t grab a condom from out of the fishbowl in the closet next to their dildo collection. They can’t get a shot every three months.

    In a cold, pragmatic sense, I’ll concede that it is a long-term good that the feminists and manginas are violently culling themselves from the gene pool — as they’d just produce another generation of stupidity, faggotry and brokenness. Even so, they should be judged appropriately and without mercy. Anyone who is this irresponsible is really unfit for life in a civilized society, and they need to know their place.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  21. The Tingler says:

    Amazed to finally see somebody else on the same tipas me about this. I’m always disappointed when even profoundly pro-life people like the folks at First Things try to argue against abortion on the grounds that it makes women feel bad.

    As if a murderer’s guilt feelings somehow make the act of murder less murdery.

    Christian cuckservatives who go that route are just playing on a field that feminists have already slanted in their own favor. Talking about women’s feelings is a three card monte trick to take your attention off the act committed. It’s part and parcel of the feminist schtick of using sentimentality to defend the indefensible. Is there another act so despicable that’s been so defended by such a mountain of sentimental bullchit?

    The proper response is derision. Laugh at their sentimental self-justifications. “I feel so bad about myself for killing my own baby. Wahh poor me.” “You’re right, dear, it’s all about you.” It doesn’t take a black sense of humor to see the laughable grotesquerie in it.

    Evelyn Waugh would have had a field day with American pro-abortion rhetoric.

  22. Rico Suave Guapo says:

    “If Christians were genuine about abortion they’d adopt them like they did in Rome when they left children to die from exposure.”

    Come visit my church. With no exaggeration, nearly half of the families (including mine) has adopted at least one child, and in many cases more than that. And I don’t think we’re particularly unique as a church.

  23. The Tingler says:

    “A hard-hearted woman once told me she did nothing wrong in aborting her child and was indignant that someone that knew about it judged her for it.”

    Welcome to 21st century America, where women can be sluts and you’re the a-hole if you judge them, and where they can kill their own babies and you’re the a-hole if you judge them.

  24. Eidolon says:

    This is the most obvious way, in my view, to show white knights that the pedestal is foolish. How many babies die by the decision of a man in a year? A hundred? And how many babies die by the decision of a woman, whose final say cannot be overridden by anyone and thus is utterly responsible for that decision? Around a million.

    And for the genius “why don’t the Christians adopt the babies” up there, here’s a hint — Christians would adopt those babies if they weren’t being systematically murdered. There’s great demand for adopted children, yet a million women a year choose for their child to die knowing it could have a good home if they gave birth to it. At least some of those Romans threw away their babies because they couldn’t afford to feed them. I would think when the Christians offered to take the babies off their hands and save them a long walk, many took that deal.

    There’s so much obsessive guilt about slavery, and so much moral preening about how much better we are than those monsters. Yet the slaves and their children at least got to live. I don’t know how people live with themselves supporting the wholesale slaughter of innocents, and consider themselves better than those who at least let their victims survive.

  25. JDG says:

    Women control their own vaginas and reproduction, no one else does. If you haven’t dealt with that already, maybe it’s time.

    I dealt with it by not marrying one of those vagina controlling baby murdering whores. Instead, I married a sane woman who knows that her vagina isn’t hers to misuse, and a baby should not have his life snuffed out at the whim of an irresponsible woman.

    The real question is: How will society deal with it. Look around you, it doesn’t look like society is handling it well at all.

  26. JDG says:

    MarcusD says:
    August 7, 2015 at 8:50 pm

    They don’t even have a clue. Total disconnect.

  27. JDG says:

    MarcusD says:
    August 7, 2015 at 9:48 pm

    Coming to a university campus near you.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    “In crude data, approximately 95% of women completing each follow-up interview reported that having the abortion was the right decision for them…

    If I read right, the follow up interviewees self selected themselves. I can’t seem to find in the paper any numbers that would indicate how many self selected interviewees there were.

    Hypothetical: suppose 1000 women have abortions, and 100 complete the followup interview, with 95 of them stating that abortion was the right decision for them. Obviously the sample is not random, therefore no conclusions about the total pool can be determined by examining the non-random subset. The other 900 said nothing…

    I also can’t determine how the followup interviews were conducted, whether anonymity was preserved or not. That might have something to do with the

    I have read some work at PlosONE that was very well done. However this doesn’t look so good from a pure methodology viewpoint. Perhaps I am missing or misreading something.

  29. Anonymous Reader says:

    Warlock
    The christian community has also increased the demand for abortion through two methods. The first is by ostracizing unwed moms, like the girl that kicked out of my high school for being pregnant.

    The 1950’s called and they want their anecdote back. In the modern world, babymommas are treated just like any other mother, in the vast majority of churches, precisely because of the option of abortion. It’s not at all a reach to realize that babymommas can and do extract cash and prizes from churches by not aborting – they hold their children hostage to the church’s good behavior.

    It should be noted that my first child was conceived (and born) because I was not allowed to buy a condom. The local drugstore where I lived was prohibited from carrying condoms because the city elders thought it would encourage sex amongst teenagers.

    Name and date. What city, what state / province, what country, what year. You don’t write like someone who is over 70, so forgive me if my skepticism offends you, but frankly I find this very difficult to believe.

    To be polite: The world is different than it was 60 or more years ago, when you were a teenager…

  30. JDG says:

    If Christians were genuine about abortion they’d adopt them like they did in Rome when they left children to die from exposure.

    Christians are adopting these babies and finding them homes when they cannot adopt. My Pastor and his wife are involved in a ministry that literally opened shop right next to a Planned Parenthood and does just what you suggest. They spend their time and resources convincing foolish young women to not murder their own children.

    It’s bad enough that women don’t know to use the aspirin method of birth control like they used to. Now they want to kill their kids before their born. I’m guessing that when women don’t realize that murdering YOUR OWN child is a BAD IDEA, things are worse than bad.

  31. Oscar says:

    “… but with full knowledge and understanding they themselves offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan; but should she utter a single moan or let fall a single tear, she had to forfeit the money, and her child was sacrificed nevertheless; and the whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums took the cries of wailing should not reach the ears of the people.” ~ Plutarch, De Superstitione 171

    “Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.” ~ Shlomo Yitzchaki, commenting on Jeremiah 7:31

    “There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the ‘grin’ is known as ‘sardonic laughter,’ since they die laughing.” ~ Cleitarchus’ paraphrase of a scholium to Plato’s Republic

  32. JDG says:

    Welcome to 21st century America, where women can be sluts and you’re the a-hole if you judge them…

    Check! I’ll add it to my list of descriptors. I now realize (gladly) that I am not merely a homophobic, racist, misogynic, sexist, bigoted, rape apologist / rapist, but that I am a homophobic, racist, misogynic, sexist, bigoted, rape apologizing rapist, a-hole.

    For any and all rabid readers of the feminist persuasion, I’m not judging YOU (unless you call yourself a Christian), I am judging your despicable, disgusting, and horrific behaviors.

  33. GeminiXcX says:

    Dork
    “Actually it will give people the chance to demonstrate that, if you think you intrinsically know what’s best for other people then you may have a mental disorder and need help – that would definitely be a good thing.”

    Women control their own vaginas and reproduction, no one else does. If you haven’t dealt with that already, maybe it’s time.

    The irony is not lost on me. I guess you “need help” too.

    verbal abuse
    If (women) feel ‘abused’ from another person calling them out on their decision, then they already have pre-existing inner guilt and shame. If you’re truly happy with your choices in life, differing opinions from others, or even outright condemnation by them, will not affect your conscience.

    -GXcX

  34. JDG says:

    Oscar says:
    August 7, 2015 at 11:22 pm

    Jesus have mercy and help us. Pagans love to criticize Christians, yet this was the world without Christ.

  35. Looking Glass says:

    @JDG:

    I’m reminded of the phrase “right side of history” and the arguments people will use with it. The short answer is the current history is a single greatest era of child slaughter in human history because we’ve taken the old cults and applied industrial efficiency.

    At the same time, the halls of Heaven will be filled with children from China. That was always going to be the case (China has been the most populated Human region since written was developed), but we encourage the practice of evil to see it happen. That simply isn’t God’s Way.

  36. JDG says:

    verbal abuse

    Yep! I’d say that just about every time I tell a feminist the truth I commit “verbal abuse”.

    Also, have you raised your voice to a woman?
    Have you criticized her in any way?
    Have you told her to stop spending foolishly?
    Are you not meeting her “emotional needs”?
    Do you brow beat her in such a manner that “she is afraid”?

    I have it on good authority (from an evangelical feminist) that these are all signs that you are a controlling, wife beating abuser.

  37. JDG says:

    Looking Glass says:
    August 7, 2015 at 11:47 pm

    Yep!

  38. JDG says:

    I should probably clarify for the younger folks. The “aspirin method” of birth control is where a women holds aspirin between her knees. For those that are rhetorically challenged, this is another way of saying that she needs to keep her legs closed (ie: stop fornicating).

  39. GeminiXcX says:

    Dork
    . . . encouraging verbal abuse of women. . . mental disorder

    Women control their own vaginas and reproduction, no one else does. If you haven’t dealt with that already, maybe it’s time.

    “abuse”; “mental disorder”??
    You showed your cards too quickly.

    Women “control their own vaginas and reproduction”, you say. The problem for you is that real men, such as the majority found here, control who we will give children to, no one else does.

    We also judge our future prospective wives/mothers-of-our-children, by whatever criteria we see fit. We will also instruct these children — including daughters — how to ‘verbally abuse’ murderous, selfish, immoral, worthless, infanticide-approving pieces of filth like yourself. If you haven’t dealt with that already, maybe it’s time.

    -GXcX

  40. praetorian says:

    if you think you intrinsically know what’s best for other people then you may have a mental disorder and need help

    MMMMMMMMM! PUT YOU IN MY OVEN!

    ITS GROSS!

  41. MarcusD says:

    @JDG

    “They don’t even have a clue. Total disconnect.”

    It’s really hard to understand how they don’t see it. Then again, I suspect many do and ignore it (e.g. spiral of silence re: Islam) and others don’t know about it because they probably wouldn’t like it (and the media obliges).

    I was reading that 70% of Americans haven’t even heard about the videos that have been released about Planned Parenthood.

  42. Dale says:

    @EmbracingReality
    >GOD’s law regarding un-wed, non-virginal young women was death.

    Actually, Deut 22 is in reference to a bride. There is no command there for what to do with an unmarried woman.
    I am not claiming that God approves of promiscuity, only that this particular passage limits itself to women who marry.

  43. JDG says:

    It’s really hard to understand how they don’t see it.

    Every time I see it brought up in front of a group of feminists it is totally missed. It’s as if they can’t see the huge, bold, black line that connects the two facts together into one topic: 1st world problems for women are a joke (and you can forget about them seeing how men have it just as bad or worse than women in 3rd world countries – not gonna happen). Maybe they are being deliberately obtuse, but I stopped giving them credit until I’ve seen that the credit is due.

    Of course when western women do try to help women in 3rd world countries they do it by introducing feminism to those women, and to those countries via US government foreign policies. In short, they fix nothing.

    I was reading that 70% of Americans haven’t even heard about the videos that have been released about Planned Parenthood.

    Media black out or selective hearing? Both I guess.

  44. Anne says:

    “It should be noted that my first child was conceived (and born) because I was not allowed to buy a condom.”

    No, Warlock. Your first child was conceived because you couldn’t keep it in your pants. You knew how babies are made, you knew you didn’t have a method of preventing pregnancy, but chose to have sex anyway. Sex is not a “right” or even a “need.” Contrary to popular belief, teenagers and young adults are capable of controlling themselves. Apparently you still believe you shouldn’t have had to deal with the consequences of your actions.

  45. mrteebs says:

    @Dirk

    Personally I’m not sure what anti-abortion rhetoric such as encouraging verbal abuse of women who have had abortions would actually achieve, it seems entirely pointless given the decision has been made. Actually it will give people the chance to demonstrate that, if you think you intrinsically know what’s best for other people then you may have a mental disorder and need help – that would definitely be a good thing.

    Women control their own vaginas and reproduction, no one else does. If you haven’t dealt with that already, maybe it’s time.

    Let’s start by properly framing your beliefs and stating them truthfully, not wrapped in euphemisms like “reproductive freedom”.

    Reproductive freedom ends the instant conception occurs because at that point, the decision whether to reproduce has already been made – whether deliberate or not. This is medically and logically indisputable. The question is thus not whether reproduction will occur but whether the result of that reproduction will die. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is really no other technically accurate term to describe the intervention that must occur to stop the result of the reproduction other than death. Frankly, it was once known as murder and punishable as such. It is still punishable as murder if anyone terminates the pregnancy against the mother’s will. Legally, killing a pregnant woman results in two murder charges, not one. Again, these are indisputable facts – not opinions. So let’s be clear: what you actually support is a woman’s right to terminate another life, for any reason (or no reason), so long as that other life resides within her own womb. You support killing, but believe it is justifiable.

    Next, let’s talk about controlling one’s vagina.

    Having someone else control a woman’s vagina without her consent is called rape. This is again an indisputable fact, not an opinion. Thus, a woman does control her vagina and this right is protected by law. Deciding whether she has any moral or social obligations based on how she has chosen to control her vagina is really the issue. What you believe is this: The woman is free to use her vagina any way she wishes and this freedom must be consequence-free, up to and including ending another life.

    Next, let’s talk about shaming.

    Please enlighten us with a single facet of feminism, or any other progressive idea advanced over the last 40 years, that did not rely heavily or exclusively on shaming and denigration. Oppose homosexuality? You should be ashamed – you’re a hater. Oppose abortion on demand? You should be ashamed – you’re a misogynist. Disagree that we’re immersed in a Rape Culture? You should be ashamed – you’re in denial. Feel that family courts are unfairly biased in favor of women? You should be ashamed – because.

    Next, let’s talk about imposing one’s morality on others.

    Personally, I’m not sure what anti-life rhetoric such as verbal abuse of men who oppose abortions would actually achieve, it seems pointless given the decision has been made. Actually it will give people the chance to demonstrate that, if you think you intrinsically know what’s best for other men then you may have a mental disorder and need help – that would definitely be a good thing.

    Finally, let’s talk about choices.

    Men don’t control their own reproduction – someone else does. He can willingly agree to marry a woman and have children with her. But she can unilaterally decide to abort. Or, she can unilaterally decide to divorce him for any reason (or no reason) and utterly destroy his life financially and emotionally by withholding from him the offspring of his reproduction. He has virtually no say in the matter and the family courts will defer to her whims in the overwhelming majority of instances. She makes these choices, no one else does. If you haven’t dealt with that already, maybe it’s time.

  46. JDG says:

    Double thumbs up mrteebs. Well said.

  47. Their greatest achievement was getting society, and more importantly, women to believe that a foetus isn’t a human. Once that was done, the crime failed to be murder.

  48. mrteebs says:

    @Dirk

    Please reread this article and then exhibit to all assembled here your superior persuasive skills in explaining why abortion and sale of dismembered fetal parts is not monstrous, why women and men alike have not severely scorched their conscience to the point where they can no longer correctly discern right from wrong, and why their feelings about the act can magically dictate the morality of the act itself.

    Please explain why we would sue a vet and revoke their license for life if they performed euthanasia on a pet by dismembering it without anesthesia, yet it is perfectly acceptable for a mother to inflict this on her own fetus – when painless methods exist or could be found.

    Continue by explaining how you intrinsically know what is best for other people – such as insisting that choice cannot be restricted, even when such choices necessitate the death of another.

    Further, please explain to us how PP has been greatly maligned in their tireless quest to do good, to uphold the Hippocratic Oath, and to promote parenthood as opposed to prevent it. Conclude by building a pie chart comparing the percent of PP’s budget and resources focused on ending a pregnancy versus creating a pregnancy and carrying it to completion.

    Extra credit: Justify the use of “Planned” rather than “Preventing” in the organization’s name, based on the pie chart results above.

  49. Opus says:

    I like to learn about America especially at that cusp when it ceased to be part of The Crown and became a Republic, and so I was reading from your No.3, Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia. Jefferson does not rule out the possibility that The Mammoth still existed in some remote part of North America and I am thus intrigued to note above that TFH seems to be of the same view. Most things in America are bigger and Jefferson was thus most put out that Buffon had erroniously taken the opposite view. Not that Jefferson was right about everything: this is what he had to say about Great Britain: “The sun of her glory is fast descending to the horizon … and herself seems passing to that awful dissolution whose issue is not given human foresight to scan”. Even Jefferson (admitting that he is not a futurist) can not be right about everything and that should give pause for thought to those who see America’s own days as numbered.

    Jefferson writes with great admiration of The Indians: he notes however that they had small families and this he puts down to poor diet and their use of certain plants as abortifacents. Buffon (back to him) had been shocked by the way the Indians did not put up with any nonsense from their women – so perhaps American white-knighting comes from France. Buffon also thought the Indians uninterested in sexual intercourse though, of course, he was mistaken about this, for the Indians limited sex to those men who had proved themselves in the Hunt or in Battle – true Alpha Males – and mocked those who without first proving themselves, sought sexual favours from women. In any case the women chose the men on the basis of their prowess – a lesson their perhaps for would-be P.U.A.s.

    America is however not very advanced in matters of Abortion as your former masters allow post birth abortion for the period of one year – not that we call it that of course. We call it Infanticide. It is surely the only crime which one receives absolution for on the basis that one is not to be blame for ones freely chosen decisions. The medical doctors (as so often) have invented the notion that women cannot be held responsible for their actions during that period of a year. I have little doubt that 95% of women killing their child before he or she reaches his or her first birthday are equally relieved. – especially as the State will white-wash the murder.

  50. Opus says:

    ” Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness”.

    Surely, so much more felicitous in the KJV.

  51. Pingback: How to distort skewed social science. | Dark Brightness

  52. theasdgamer says:

    …a baby should not have his life snuffed out at the whim of an irresponsible woman.

    “…a baby should not have its arms and legs and head ripped off at the whim of a cold-hearted, murderous woman.” There. Fixed.

  53. theasdgamer says:

    Please don’t feed the trolls.

  54. Adam says:

    On the one hand Christians are told not to judge (Matthew 7 and John 8). On the other hand Christians are asked to judge (Matthew 18 and phillipians 4).

    How might we reconcile these two? Especially when liberals of the ilk that support PPs abortion activities point to the verses above telling us not judge.

    In my opinion, as Christians we are expected to judge others…. with the intent to correct.

    However, we are not to judge with the intent to condemn. Only God is holy enough to do that and he makes clear that his second coming will bring with it a judgement with condemnation (to eternal punishment). In contrast, his first coming was a judgement with an intent to correct (John 3:17).

    Contrary to what feminists tell us, we are totally within our God given right to judge abortion, and any other activity, but our intention has to be correction and not condemnation.

  55. Novaseeker says:

    The problem is that I think we are at a cultural point where many people are willing to say that they prefer to live longer of, based on this “human-ish stuff”, they can live longer, while this ” human-ish but not a human” perishes for that purpose.

    In other words, I think we can easily underestimate the depravity of the average human, male and female alike. It’s barbarism at this point, but humanity, when stripped of divinely ordained morality, is barbaric, even if the barbarism is decked in sleek, postmodern techno-glitter. The shit still stinks, because we’re dealing with humans here.

  56. Oscar says:

    @ JDG says:
    August 7, 2015 at 11:38 pm

    “Jesus have mercy and help us. Pagans love to criticize Christians, yet this was the world without Christ.”

    Yes, and as the Church increasingly prostitutes itself, and as a result the culture drifts further from Christ, we drift closer to superstitious pagan practices.

  57. Michelle says:

    I’m not sure what good punching harder is going to do. Maybe we can make more women ashamed of their abortions, but that just means that fewer women will talk about it. Shame won’t keep them from having it done. The right to privacy that abortion laws are based on isn’t going anywhere. Abortion will probably stay legal and if even if it is made illegal unless there are no exceptions for rape victims or the mother’s health then women will continue having abortions even if they have to lie and claim that they were raped or find a doctor who will claim that they are in medical danger. Even most people who are pro life would make the rape and/or health of the mother exception.

    The number of abortions being had has been declining for a while now. I’m not sure exactly why that is (maybe increased access to contraceptives) but I doubt that it is shame. If we can figure out why abortions are decreasing and push harder there maybe we can lower the number further. I don’t see how running around making people feel badly is going to save lives although it probably won’t hurt anything.

  58. Boxer says:

    Dear Oscar:

    as a result the culture drifts further from Christ, we drift closer to superstitious pagan practices.

    Please. In saying this, you’re displacing the blame from women to men. This is the same motivation that the kooks here are driven by when they blame Jews, illuminati, etc. You (and they) always excuse the behavior of feral wimminz by creating some boogeyman who is actually in charge — the hidden demon always being male.

    Pagan societies that were viable never allowed women to kill their children for convenience sake (see Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars for two clear examples of viable pagan cultures).

    Women and their white-knights have seized some social control, and thus they’re pushing society closer to a Christian matriarchy. What religious or cultural customs are extant doesn’t matter. When feral wimminz and their enablers take over a society, this is the result.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  59. Boxer says:

    Hi Michelle:

    I’m not sure what good punching harder is going to do. Maybe we can make more women ashamed of their abortions, but that just means that fewer women will talk about it. Shame won’t keep them from having it done.

    Historically, shame was a great motivator for individuals to improve themselves. Two hundred years ago, a feral wimminz who had an abortion would know that she wouldn’t be able to find a man to support her. She’d know that she would be shunned from all decent folk in town. She’d know that all professions (aside from perhaps rag-picker or harlot) would be instantly closed to her.

    She’d move off to someplace far away, and try to start over, or mail-order bride herself to someone, knowing it was her last chance — most importantly, she’d never act that way again, and she’d shame any younger, stupid girls who she came in contact with, partly to cover up her own shame, and partly because she knew the results.

    The society that existed two hundred years ago was not perfect, by any means, but in this respect it was more viable and superior to our own. People knew that certain boundaries, once crossed, had dire consequences. This is the value of shame.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  60. Eidolon says:

    @Michelle

    This is the “if it’s still possible it’ll make no difference” argument. But if the culture looks down on it and there are hoops to jump through, it will be greatly reduced.

    People could get divorced before no-fault divorce, but there were some hoops to jump through and society generally looked down on it. Compare the rate of divorce when it was possible with that when it was easy and you’ll see why it’s important to make whatever restrictions we can.

    Besides, Jesus Himself shames people. The most useful form of shaming is reminding people of things they already believe but are trying to forget. People know that killing babies is wrong; they get around that by pretending that “fetuses” aren’t really babies. Forcing them to face the fact that those who are killed are real human children can only make it harder for people to pretend abortion is not an enormity.

    Another way of saying it is this. As quoted above, “the whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums took the cries of wailing should not reach the ears of the people.” Shaming means quieting down the flutes and the drums so the ears of the people can hear.

  61. Dalrock says:

    @Michelle

    I’m not sure what good punching harder is going to do. Maybe we can make more women ashamed of their abortions, but that just means that fewer women will talk about it.

    Of course it works. This is why, as the site’s resident feminist, you are being so careful not to identify with the ugliness you are promoting. You carefully distance yourself from the kind of woman who would have an abortion, while complaining that I’m going to cause them to have the wrong sort of feelings about it by speaking what is plainly true. It is ugly.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    Pukeko60 provides a quick estimate of what’s wrong with the PLOS survey here:

    http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2015/08/how-to-distort-skewed-social-science/

    [D: I’ve added a note to the OP with a link to Pukeko’s analysis.]

  63. The number of abortions being had has been declining for a while now. I’m not sure exactly why that is (maybe increased access to contraceptives) but I doubt that it is shame. If we can figure out why abortions are decreasing and push harder there maybe we can lower the number further. I don’t see how running around making people feel badly is going to save lives although it probably won’t hurt anything.

    Wow, you are dense. The same could be said of murder, rape and most violent crime. All have come down. We don’t stop punishing those though.. It could also be said of divorce. Abortion has killed upwards of 50 million babies in USA alone. Your argument reads like that of a feminist and the idea of coat hangers being used if we don’t allow women the option of murdering babies. It’s futile. There are still upwards of 1 million aborted babies done in America each year, the figure has not decreased by much at all and is probably understated. There are always people who will do bad things, by not punishing those people, you only allow more to do such bad behaviour.

    Shame works, and it’s about time feminists like yourself were shamed to the full extent it can be done.

  64. Bruce says:

    Sin hardens hearts. The worse the sin the harder the heart.

    Women are particularly prone to the vice of pride:
    https://bonald.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-most-dangerous-vice-for-women/

  65. Michelle says:

    @ Dalrock –

    I am not a feminist. That title is thrown around so loosely here that it almost ceases to have meaning. I think it means “woman who said something that I disagree with” in this instance. That by the way, is an excellent example of how shaming done all willy nilly loses its power. I would have been upset to be called a feminist before I started reading here.

    I have not in anyway promoted abortion. As I said in my initial comment I don’t think that your approach will be helpful but I also don’t think that it will be harmful. I’m not trying to stop you or your readers from shaming anyone, but I hope that people who are serious about ending abortion don’t let shaming others take the place of actually doing something that will help.

    @ Boxer

    Most women will not admit publicly or even privately that they have had an abortion. They already feel ashamed, and know that they have done something ugly and murderous. But unless they tell everyone there is no way to shun them and oust them from society. We can continue to shame the idea of abortion and being pro choice in general, but when an outsider shames another large group of people I’m not sure that it is effective.

    @ Eidolon

    The most useful form of shaming is reminding people of things they already believe but are trying to forget. People know that killing babies is wrong; they get around that by pretending that “fetuses” aren’t really babies. Forcing them to face the fact that those who are killed are real human children can only make it harder for people to pretend abortion is not an enormity.

    I agree with this. This why I believe that everyone old enough to understand should be taught about fetal development. They need to see the pictures (3d ultrasounds) so that they cannot later be deceived or deceive themselves into thinking that it isn’t baby killing. My children know what a baby in the womb looks like and that they all started out that way. They aren’t old enough for an abortion discussion, but I don’t think that will ever be able to be convinced that the unborn are just some cells and tissue.

  66. mrteebs says:

    Michelle,

    In my comments to Dirk, I cited four examples where shame has worked spectacularly well. Well enough to change not just our culture, but our laws.

    The great lie is that shame doesn’t work. Did you not read the actual post that Dalrock wrote – or do you come here merely to do drive-bys?

    I honestly think Cane Caldo is onto something by banning women from commenting at his blog. They generally detract far more than they contribute, except in a perverse way by proving the very assertions being made about the tone deafness of team woman, or by their strident “yes, but I’m not like that – look at what a fantastic wife I am” postings.

  67. theasdgamer says:

    Forget about shame when it comes to abortion. Instead, execute women who abort their babies because it’s murder.

  68. Dalrock says:

    @Michelle

    I am not a feminist. That title is thrown around so loosely here that it almost ceases to have meaning.

    I’m not throwing the term around loosely. Your commenting history speaks for itself. You always have a feminist angle you are working that you are trying at the same time to conceal. Do you think no one noticed?

  69. Dalrock says:

    I should add Michelle that it is your conniving that I find much more annoying than your feminism. It is as tedious as it is transparent.

  70. theasdgamer says:

    Michelle, the mischievous, misandrist machiavel. I wax poetic or sumting.

  71. Ergo Slugg says:

    So what if only 5% of violent rapists regret the act; only 5% of murderers regret the act; only 5% of drunk drivers regret the act; etc., ad nauseum? The individual’s “feelings” about the act are irrelevant to whether the underlying act is legal, moral or ethical. Women have adopted the belief that if it is legal, it’s morally okay.

    Agree or disagree with having legal abortion [or some variation of unrestricted abortion on demand], the fact is that American women destroy millions of living human organisms (call them fetuses, unborn children, or whatever) every year. That is the issue, not whether they’re retrospectively sad/glad/mad or cheerful about it.

  72. mrteebs says:

    I sense a new bumper sticker in our future: “Give shame a chance.”

  73. mrteebs says:

    Juries, judges, parole boards, parents – anyone who is expected to make disciplinary decisions and apply both judgement and law – consider those without remorse to be the most heinous perpetrators of all and worthy of the most severe punishment. Dalrock is precisely right – again – because the lack of remorse and “bad feelings” should tell us that the pressure vessel is dangerously over the limit – so far over the limit that the needle has broken off and it can’t even register on the gauge any more.

    Can you not picture Cecile Richards literally wiping her mouth?

  74. Michelle says:

    @ Dalrock

    I almost expect to be accused of practicing witchcraft next. I’ve been open about my opinions, there’s no conniving here.

    In the 1900 abortion was illegal almost in almost every state. There was plenty of shame surrounding out of wedlock pregnancy, sex outside of marriage and abortion. Still in the 1930’s doctors performed 800,000 abortions a year. And that doesn’t include the backalley abortions. There were just over 1 million abortions performed in 2011 and that number is down 10% or so from there previous year. It couldn’t hurt to try shame, but I see no evidence that shame is going to reduce the number of abortions.

    I will drop out of the conversation at this point, but if someone, wants to post some ideas about how we are going to shame people in to not having abortion I will be lurking and would love to read them.

  75. Tom K. says:

    I have been Christian and pro-life for over forty years as an adult and was active in pro-life rallies in the 80s. One thing that was always emphasized was that we could not in any way ever BLAME a woman for having an abortion or do or say anything that might induce SHAME in her. It was automatically assumed this would push her to have an abortion and keep her from coming to the crisis pregnancy center.

    So how’s that working for ya’ these days? The rate of abortion is the same today as it was then.

    Shaming and blaming are the most effective tools we men have in dealing with women. It is THEIR kryptonite. (For men, it’s probably hope for and fear of the denial of sex but they don’t even have to say it! The Christian manginas and white knights “fill in the blanks” before they take a single step when dealing with women!)

    My enlightenment to the true nature of women (i.e. taking the red pill) began when I, for the first time in my life, faced THIS realitiy: EVERY SINGLE ABORTION EVERY COMMITTED SINCE ROWE v. WADE WAS CONSENTED TO AND COMMITTED BY A WOMAN. THAT’S BETWEEN 30 TO 40 MILLION INDIVIDUAL SNOWFLAKES AGREEING TO COMMIT MURDER.

    THAT opened my eyes to the Red Pill Truth! Women are likely to commit murder to get their own way than 75% of the men in the world! Incomprehensible!

    Shame and Blame is my NEW Pro-Life Position and Tactic.

    I bet IT will be effective. But even if it’s not, at least I’ll FINALLY be telling the truth!

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    Michelle
    Still in the 1930’s doctors performed 800,000 abortions a year. And that doesn’t include the backalley abortions

    Cite? Source?

  77. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer says:
    August 8, 2015 at 11:31 am

    “Please. In saying this, you’re displacing the blame from women to men. This is the same motivation that the kooks here are driven by when they blame Jews, illuminati, etc. You (and they) always excuse the behavior of feral wimminz by creating some boogeyman who is actually in charge — the hidden demon always being male.”

    Where did I state that there was some hidden male demon somewhere? Can you provide a quote?

    “Pagan societies that were viable never allowed women to kill their children for convenience sake (see Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars for two clear examples of viable pagan cultures).”

    Human sacrifice in general – and child sacrifice in particular – are common in pagan cultures. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions. Furthermore, non-ritual infanticide and abortion were common among the Greeks, Romans and most other pagan cultures.

    “Women and their white-knights have seized some social control, and thus they’re pushing society closer to a Christian matriarchy.”

    There is no such thing as a Christian matriarchy.

    “What religious or cultural customs are extant doesn’t matter. When feral wimminz and their enablers take over a society, this is the result.”

    Actually, they matter a lot. The Judeo-Christian belief system recognizes the dignity of the individual because each individual is created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). That makes an enormous difference.

  78. Michelle,

    I will drop out of the conversation at this point, but if someone, wants to post some ideas about how we are going to shame people in to not having abortion I will be lurking and would love to read them.

    What I usually do when a woman confides to me that she has had an abortion (and this has happened quite a few times since I am easy to talk to) I shun. I give her the silent treatment for the rest of her life. I purposely go out of my way to NOT associate with her in anyway. I exclude my children from seeing her children, I do not involve myself in any activity that involves her, I put her on my own personal naughty list. In one case, this caused a woman to contact me (in person) and ask me why I am treating her so badly? I tell her the truth, that I am praying for her immortal soul that God be merciful towards her when He judges, but that she is a murderer. That brought that one particular woman to tears and she started screaming at me that I violated her trust. As I turned and walked away from her I told her that I didn’t tell anyone about what she did, that I still have her secret. I didn’t violate ANY trust. I just can’t be in her presence. She stopped screaming at that point. Haven’t heard from her since.

    This shame works Michelle. But it works best if we ALL (uniformly) do it to women who have had abortions. As much as I would never have a friend who was a lawyer that practices family law, I would never be a friend to an Obstetrician who ever performed an abortion. And forget all women who you know have had abortions, You have to pray for these people but also shun these people.

  79. JDG says:

    The medical doctors (as so often) have invented the notion that women cannot be held responsible for their actions during that period of a year.

    Even days, weeks, or months after birth? Why am I not surprised. So much for the Hippocratic oath, and one more reason not to trust the medical profession anymore. The next logical step is to start knocking off the elderly, or aren’t we already there too?

  80. Michelle, before you respond about my shunning technique, and how does that prevent a pregnant woman from going and having an abortion, the shame aspect only works if she was thinking about having an abortion herself, if she knew that I shunned other women for doing that, and she FEARED that I would shun her. I don’t have any evidence that this has happened, but I am doing my small little part. This is me “punching harder” as Dalrock likes to call it.

  81. “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;” Romans 1:28

    We knew this day was coming. It is still the day of the “footman” but I see dust clouds on our horizon.

    “How long shall the land mourn, and the herbs of every field wither, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein? the beasts are consumed, and the birds; because they said, He shall not see our last end. If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan? Jeremiah 12:4-5

    The West was a “land of peace” but the flood is coming.

  82. JDG says:

    And then I read this:

    I’m not sure what good punching harder is going to do. Maybe we can make more women ashamed of their abortions, but that just means that fewer women will talk about it. Shame won’t keep them from having it done.

    Are you blind? Of course it will.

  83. Also, I have seen bitches who have killed their litters. They are crazy worthless animals thereafter. They might be “happy” after a meal of puppy, but that just shows how broken they are it’s not a gauge of good health. At least the women who are grieving still realize they are broke.

  84. hey dalorkskkzzas!!

    da gbfm is in a connudnrumsz!! conundrum!

    my friends christianz fiance wants to have an abortionz, so i told him to come herez.

    he saw that you said “christain men need game,” so he started neging her and gaming her, and she had da abortion anwayysywz, and now he blames it on da gbfm for sending him here zzlzlzlzloz

    what shouldz da gbfm say/do?

    tahks in andnavancned! lzozlzoz

  85. JDG says:

    Oscar says:
    August 8, 2015 at 10:41 am

    Yep (non-child sacrificing pagans notwithstanding)! And I also disagree with Boxer that this takes blame off of women. A woman’s sex will not get her a free pass when she stands before the Eternal Judge.

  86. JDG says:

    Boxer says:
    August 8, 2015 at 11:38 am

    Yep! In my wife’s country they have a saying they use to describe sexually immoral women: “They have no shame.” There are none so blind as those who want to be blind.

  87. Dale says:

    mrteebs at August 8, 2015 at 2:06 am

    Thank you Mr Teebs. That was a very strong and excellent comment. Euphemisms are used to change the meaning of what is being discussed. Clear, accurate language is essential.

    Boxer at August 8, 2015 at 11:38 am

    Very wise and well articulated. Too bad we do not still have that type of culture.

    Michelle said: My children know what a baby in the womb looks like and that they all started out that way. They aren’t old enough for an abortion discussion, but I don’t think that will ever be able to be convinced that the unborn are just some cells and tissue.

    This is a very wise idea. If we would promote the use of such images it would help at least some. We could include it as part of Human Development/sex education in school.

  88. JDG says:

    I am not a feminist. That title is thrown around so loosely here that it almost ceases to have meaning.

    Wrong on both counts. A feminist is anti-male authority and supposedly pro woman. In other words opposed to patriarchy. A feminist wants what is perceived as the best for women at the expense of everyone else, without accountability or responsibility, all while denying it. You are a feminist.

    Anonymous Reader says:
    Michelle
    Still in the 1930’s doctors performed 800,000 abortions a year. And that doesn’t include the backalley abortions

    Cite? Source?

    Seconded.

  89. greyghost says:

    There is no shaming women only wicked selfishness guidance. Rather than talk to women about abortion inform young men that women that have abortions are only good for booty calls. Let all men know those women will kill a helpless child what would make you think they can care bout anything much less a man. Never waste tears or effort on a woman that has killed a child legal or not.
    Talk to men with concern of some evil cunt hearing or reading the comments . That is how it is done. Remember 95% felt good about KILLING a human child too helpless to live with out her. And she proudly killed it. “You go girl.” Love her and make a commitment to her she deserves it because women are the civilized ones.

  90. Oscar says:

    @ JDG says:
    August 8, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    “Even days, weeks, or months after birth? Why am I not surprised.”

    “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons… the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee… We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.” ~ Ethicist Peter Singer

    “[a human being] possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity.” ~ philosopher Michael Tooley

    “[infants do not] possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them… there will be permissible exceptions to the rule against killing infants that will not apply to the rule against killing adults and children.” ~ philosophy professor Jeffrey Reiman

    http://www.equip.org/article/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/

    “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.” ~ philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics

    http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

  91. Oscar says:

    @ JDG says:
    August 8, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    “A woman’s sex will not get her a free pass when she stands before the Eternal Judge.”

    God will judge each human being that He created in His image – male AND female – according to his/her works (Rev 20:11-15). Any philosophy that teaches otherwise is un-Biblical, and therefore NOT Christian in nature.

  92. Michelle says:

    @ Anonymous Reader


    Still in the 1930’s doctors performed 800,000 abortions a year. And that doesn’t include the backalley abortions

    Cite? Source?

    The Oxford Companion to American History.

    BTW – If you look at the number of abortions and the size of the population in the 1930s the abortion rate was higher then. Also abortion was common enough from the 1850- early 1900s that even some early feminists called it murder and spoke out against it.

  93. feeriker says:

    Shame works, and it’s about time feminists like yourself were shamed to the full extent it can be done.

    As I said upthread, militant feminists are largely immune from shame (like all other types of psychopaths, they simply lack the empathy necessary to process such emotions). Infinitely more important than making them feel shame is making them feel the sting of PUNISHMENT for crimes such as baby murder (a.k.a. abortion), paternity fraud, parental alienation/non-custodial kidnapping of children, false rape/abuse accusations, and all of their other vile deeds.

  94. Looking Glass says:

    @Oscar:

    The Monster, Peter Singer. What an evil, evil man he has always chosen to be.

  95. feeriker says:

    I am not a feminist.

    And Richard Nixon wasn’t a crook either.

  96. Boxer says:

    Where did I state that there was some hidden male demon somewhere? Can you provide a quote?

    You wrote:

    “Yes, and as the Church increasingly prostitutes itself, and as a result the culture drifts further from Christ, we drift closer to superstitious pagan practices.”

    The abortion trend really has nothing to do with religion, and most of the feral wimminz who get abortions have nothing to do with “pagan practices”. They remain protestant, catholic and jewish wimminz, same as they were before.

    By bringing up nonsense about “pagan practices”, you’re opening the door for us to blame some pre-Christian resurgence, rather than the actual christian wimminz, who are (lest we forget) doing the killing of the babies. This is the same tactic as the kooks who blame Jewish conspiracies, illuminati, etc. for wimminz bad behavior. All these other groups open the door to displacing blame from where it really belongs.

    Human sacrifice in general – and child sacrifice in particular – are common in pagan cultures. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions. Furthermore, non-ritual infanticide and abortion were common among the Greeks, Romans and most other pagan cultures.

    1. You have provided no historical sources for this contention. Can you kick one out to support this nonsense?

    2. Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans, nor “most other pagan cultures” murdered babies with the ferocity of the Christian/Jewish society you live in. Stats for the abortion trend are right here. Thus, by your own logic, murdering babies must be a Christian/Jewish sacrament, as Christians and Jewish wimminz do it more than anyone else, by a long mile.

    There is no such thing as a Christian matriarchy.

    Yes, there is. You’re living in one, right now.

    Try blaming the actual Christian and Jewish wimminz who are murdering their own children, rather than blaming “pagans” (that don’t exist) for this shit. It’s less palatable to face the truth, but much more effective.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  97. Boxer says:

    Dear Michelle:

    Most women will not admit publicly or even privately that they have had an abortion. They already feel ashamed, and know that they have done something ugly and murderous. But unless they tell everyone there is no way to shun them and oust them from society. We can continue to shame the idea of abortion and being pro choice in general, but when an outsider shames another large group of people I’m not sure that it is effective.

    Whether it’s effective is of no consequence to men, as men should continue to speak the truth regardless of the consequences.

    Ever read Hobbes’ Leviathan? It’s worth a gander and relevant to my point. A woman who has an abortion ought to feel ashamed, and her shame ought to drive her to change her life and reform. Shame is best when the wrongdoer walks on eggshells for the rest of his or her life, fearful of being found out, and terrified of making the same mistake again. Leviathan is much spookier than any human king or supernatural god. He doesn’t forgive, and will never forget.

    A healthy society would enforce a high level of shame for vacuuming one’s children into the garbage disposal. That’s my position, and I’m sticking to it.

    Best,

    Boxer

  98. Maunalani says:

    “If Christians were genuine about abortion they’d adopt them like they did in Rome when they left children to die from exposure.”

    Many in my church have adopted children. My wife and I raised two, both our sons are adopted.

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Oxford Companion to American History.

    That is not a cite or a reference, that is the name of a book. Tell me the edition, the publisher, year of publication and page number(s). That’s the standard for a reference I learned when I was in grade school, so I don’t feel it too onerous for you.

    BTW – If you look at the number of abortions and the size of the population in the 1930s the abortion rate was higher then.

    I can do arithmetic. I also grew up with people who were adults during the Depression, and from their first hand experiences I am skeptical of 800,000 abortions per annum performed by doctors in the period 1930 – 1939.

    Also abortion was common enough from the 1850- early 1900s that even some early feminists called it murder and spoke out against it.

    So what?

  100. JDG says:

    There is no such thing as a Christian matriarchy.

    Yes, there is. You’re living in one, right now.

    No there isn’t, and no we are not. If a society is a matriarchy, it is not Christian.

    If the father is not the legal head of the household, that society is not Christian.

    When a society passes laws contrary to Christian (biblical) teaching, that society is not Christian.

    When a society openly mocks the Bible specifically, and biblical Christianity in general, that society is not Christian.

    We do not live in a Christian society. We do not live in a Christian matriarchy for there is no such thing. We live in a post Christian, gyno-centered, feminist society. A society cannot be Christ following (ie: Christian) and feminist.

    Once again, just because I call myself a carpenter and own a hammer doesn’t mean I am a carpenter.

  101. mrteebs says:

    Michelle picked a convenient time to drop a turd in the punchbowl and then leave the party. I would personally like to see her rescind her self-imposed banishment and return to sample her mixture.

    I simply do not believe the 1930s figure of 800,000 she claims. Period. It doesn’t pass any measure of reasonableness.

    Per the 1930 census, there were 123 million people in the United States. 26% of those were females between the ages of 12 and 44, which we will very generously assume is childbearing age, before the advent of in-vitro. That’s 32 million females and an abortion rate of 800,000 / 32,000,000 or 2.5% per year. 12-16 year olds were not routinely having sex in those days, but we are being generous with our figure of 32 million to give a conservatively low abortion rate.

    Today, the population is 320 million and 65 million of those are females of childbearing age. Assuming 1 million abortions, that is a rate of 1.5% per year. Given that contraception is widely available today and encouraged, and that in 1930 it was not, this still asks us to believe that the abortion rate has decreased by 40% since 1930. It also asks us to believe that these were abortions performed by doctors and do not include back-alley abortions. Since abortion was largely illegal in the 1930s, we are asked to believe that there were 800,000 therapeutic abortions performed, allowing doctors to legally report them. Either that, or some industrious agency was meticulously recording the behavior of every doctor, including those things the doctor did not want reported. Or, the doctor was willing to incriminate himself by reporting illegal activity. All of these strain credulity.

    The CDC began keeping abortion records in 1970. The abortion rate climbed very rapidly in the early 1970s, as one would expect once it was legalized. In 1970, the CDC reported 194,000 abortions. By 1980, that number was 1.3 million. So the decade that stopped shaming women and made abortion legal saw a 7X increase in abortions.

    So much for the contention that shaming something and making it illegal has no correlation with behavior. I am much more inclined to believe CDC data than Michelle’s fantasy football scores.

  102. Michelle says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    Boyer, Paul S., ed. (2006). The Oxford companion to United States history. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. p. 3.

    So what?

    Abortion was shamed publicly, by feminists and just about everyone else, yet it was more common than it is now. The point is that shame didn’t prevent abortion.

  103. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    No there isn’t, and no we are not. If a society is a matriarchy, it is not Christian.

    So, you (and Oscar) feel that if someone is doing something you dislike, you can unilaterally declare them not to be a Christian? (I’m wondering which one of you has the authority to exile Christians, and what you two would do if you disagreed about one person’s status? )

    The world actually doesn’t work this way. There is some play in words, of course, but “Christian” means something specific, and our society remains distinctly Christian in character and culture, whether you like it or not. Most of the wimminz who are killing their kids are accurately described as Christians, whether or not you personally want to excommunicate them, or call them “pagans” or what not.

    Best,

    Boxer

  104. JDG says:

    The abortion trend really has nothing to do with religion,…

    Then it’s an amazing coincidence (not) that abortions increased and even became legal as the country became less and less Christian.

    … and most of the feral wimminz who get abortions have nothing to do with “pagan practices”.

    Abortion looks an awful lot like the pagan practices recorded in the Bible. They certainly aren’t Christian practices. Just because self-proclaimed “Christians” are committing acts of horror does not mean that those are acts are Christian.

    Can you point to any ancient (or even modern) writings that dictate what those pagan practices should look like verses what they are recorded to have looked like. We can do this with Christianity and the Bible. Where is the equivalent writings for the pagan religions that you are defending?

    They remain protestant, catholic and jewish wimminz, same as they were before.

    So they say, but the lack of faithfulness of supposed adherents to the teachings of Christ does not change the fact that these are not Christian acts. We have the Bible to show us that they are not. What do we have to show us that child sacrifice is NOT pagan?

  105. earl says:

    ‘If Christians were genuine about abortion they’d adopt them like they did in Rome when they left children to die from exposure.’

    There are plenty of ways Christians convince the woman to have the baby…including having sonograms more mandatory and adoption.

    Besides there’s a big difference between saving a child who is already born vs. trying to save an unborn child. You still have the mother involved with the later.

  106. greyghost says:

    You know birth control pills for men puts a dent in all of this .

  107. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    *snip most of this fallacious white-knighting for Christian ritual child murderers*

    Then it’s an amazing coincidence (not) that abortions increased and even became legal as the country became less and less Christian.

    This is an interesting contention. Do you have any hard evidence (perhaps census data) to back this up? From what I can find, the USA was said to actually became “more Christian” in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as the abortion debate heated up and Roe was announced.

    http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/trelww2.htm

    Again, I’m not interested in your personal excommunications of people. You are welcome to your opinion, but you have no authority to tell anyone they “are not a Christian” etc., because they displeased or disagreed with you.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  108. JDG says:

    So, you (and Oscar) feel that if someone is doing something you dislike, you can unilaterally declare them not to be a Christian?

    No. Oscar and myself believe (not feel) that when someone is doing something contrary to Christian (biblical) teaching, they are not behaving like a Christian and those acts are most definitely NOT Christian. The Bible says that we will know them by there fruits. Jesus said that His sheep know His voice. Jesus said that if we love Him, we will obey Him. There are many sheep in wolf’s clothing pretending to be Christians, but God knows those that are His and those that are not.

    Someone isn’t a Christian (or not a Christian) because I say so, or you say so, or Oscar says so, or even they themselves say so. Someone is a Christian when they have the Son. If they have the Son then God will give them His Spirit and eternal life. They are saved and they follow Christ. I don’t expect you to understand, but not everyone who attends church and says “Lord, Lord” is a Christian.

    There is some play in words, of course, but “Christian” means something specific,…

    Yes it does, and we find what that is when we read the Bible. We don’t let post Christian secularists redefine the term for us.

    and our society remains distinctly Christian in character and culture, whether you like it or not.

    As I’ve already pointed out, our society is post Christian (formally Christian), so of course there will be traits left over from it’s former character. Having the traits left over from a former character does not mean that the character of that culture hasn’t changed.

    There are many new traits that make up the new character of this society, and those new traits are definitely NOT Christian. Our laws are not Christian. Our schools are not Christian. Our government is not Christian. Even most of our “Christian” churches are not Christian. How can a church (or anyone) that denies the need for a savior, or denies that the resurrection ever took place honestly call themselves Christian? They can not. They can pretend, but that is all.

  109. JDG says:

    Again, I’m not interested in your personal excommunications of people. You are welcome to your opinion, but you have no authority to tell anyone they “are not a Christian” etc., because they displeased or disagreed with you.

    I also am not interested in your personal opinions about the nature of God and what constitutes a Christian. It’s not me that anyone need to please or fear, it’s the one that after He has taken there life can cast them into hell. And it is He who will decide who is Christian (following Christ) and not.

    My concern is that people will be deceived by words you and others write from a lack of understanding in spiritual matters. My aim isn’t to dissuade you or anyone set against Christ, but rather to warn others who may be genuinely seeking.

  110. JDG says:

    mrteebs says:
    August 8, 2015 at 6:09 pm

    Another double thumbs up.

  111. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    Your own lengthy diatribes are a perfect example of how hard it must be for Christian men to provide any reasonable sense of guidance to their community.

    No doubt there’s a JDG and an Oscar in every church, who will attempt to blame some pagans or some agnostic for the behavior of the Christian women who patronize and support the abortion clinics — even going so far as to excuse the abortion seekers by labeling them “not really Christians” (thus immune from criticism by Christian authorities). Bravo.

    Boxer

  112. Robin Munn says:

    Boxer,

    When a Christian (in this case, JDG) calls a fellow churchgoer’s behavior “un-Christian”, they’re doing the opposite of excusing that person, they’re calling on them to shape up. (The full argument goes “You’re a Christian, but your current behavior is unworthy of a follower of Christ. Change your behavior.”) Your reading comprehension is usually better than this: what happened?

  113. Robin Munn says:

    Well, a couple minutes’ worth of Googling helped me turn up the reference that Michelle refused to give us. It’s quite a long link, so I’ve TinyURL’d it:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/o3jyb2l

    The second paragraph states: “During the 1930s, abortion clinics run by licensed physicians operated quite openly, contributing to an estimated 800,000 abortions a year. However, the procedure was still quite risky; induced abortions accounted for 14 percent of maternal mortality.” (Emphasis mine).

    Note that I do not believe this; I think mrteebs’ analysis is far more likely to be correct than this “estimate”: the book provides no footnotes, nor any way that we can tell who made this estimate. For all we can tell, the author pulled it out of his hat.

  114. JDG says:

    Dear Boxer:

    I’m sorry I have fallen so far from your good graces, but perhaps it is for the best.

    No doubt there’s a JDG and an Oscar in every church, who will attempt to point out spiritual error and attempt to put blame where blame is due.

    FIFY – because that is all we are trying to do.

    And what does an unbeliever (pagan or agnostic) really know about a “reasonable sense of guidance” for a Christian (Christ following) community? These involve spiritual matters that, according to the Bible, the un-spiritual man cannot understand. Blaming everything on “the Christians” certainly won’t get you anywhere when you:

    a) include multitudes of people who cannot be Christian by any biblical understanding of the term.

    b) label sinful acts as Christian simply because Christians have committed them.

    even going so far as to excuse the abortion seekers by labeling them “not really Christians”

    It bears repeating that many who say they are Christian are not Christian. The Bible bears this out, and this only makes since as most people are not Christian.

    It has become obvious to me that you are counting as Christian a great many who ARE NOT Christian.

    Furthermore, no one is excusing baby murderers whether they actually be Christian or not. Everyone knows that Christians do bad things too. Everyone (almost) also knows that those bad things ARE NOT Christian.

  115. JDG says:

    since = sense

  116. JDG says:

    When a Christian (in this case, JDG) calls a fellow churchgoer’s behavior “un-Christian”, they’re doing the opposite of excusing that person, they’re calling on them to shape up.

    Yes! Absolutely!

    I’m also calling out this idea that we have to accept every self-proclaimed “Christian” as truly Christian. We are to test the spirits (1John 4:1).

  117. The Tingler says:

    “Still in the 1930’s doctors performed 800,000 abortions a year. And that doesn’t include the backalley abortions.”

    Nobody kept stats on abortion prior to its legalization. Pro-choicers in the 60s lied about the numbers of abortions being performed in back alleys in order to make the case for legalization more urgent. They started with a small number and it grew with every re-telling. The founder of NARAL, who decades later became pro-life, came out in the 90s and admitted that he and the other leaders of the pro-choice movement knowingly invented this bogus statistic and inflated it to make their case. This is or should be common knowledge.

  118. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    And what does an unbeliever (pagan or agnostic) really know about a “reasonable sense of guidance” for a Christian (Christ following) community?

    Well, as an unbeliever who is living in a Christian matriarchy right now, I think I can answer this.

    Christianity, as it is expressed in North America, declares the chopping up children to be a reasonable and tolerable “choice” made by Christian wimminz. You seem to disagree with this, which is strange, since it’s the theme of Dalrock’s original article.

    label sinful acts as Christian simply because Christians have committed them.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=_FR0AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=christian+compassion+pro-choice&source=bl&ots=9NvGLh91oB&sig=ypNt39B5fnT1SeEGmDJjbse0WLo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCGoVChMIv5HT-IGbxwIVDjiICh0dXQ5b#v=onepage&q=christian%20compassion%20pro-choice&f=false

    Again, a willing acceptance of abortion is one of the planks of many Christian churches today. You can try to excuse this with the “no true Christians” argument you’ve been using, and you can continue to try to blame “pagans” (lol); but, it’d be more effective to start criticizing your brothers and sisters who are currently killing their children.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  119. Gurney Halleck says:

    Sorry, I just can’t understand the argument that aborting fetuses is wrong.

    An adult pig or cow should have more of a right to live than a human fetus — after all,the pig and cow are more developed beings with more sensitivity and more eagerness to stay alive. Yet if we as a society don’t care about ending the lives of fully alive pigs and cows, we shouldn’t care about women aborting fetuses either.

    That said, I DO think abortion should be illegal as a matter of equalizing the sexual power between the sexes. Society bans prostitution to the benefit of women’s ability to capitalize on their female erotic capital. Likewise, abortion should be forbidden to allow men to easily snag a prime aged partner through beta bucks game.

  120. Boxer says:

    Dear Gurney:

    Well, vacating the whole moral argument, what do you think of the people who procure abortions? Do the abortion clinic clients strike you as people who live thoughtful, examined lives? Why or why not?

    How about the people who make their living performing abortions? Are they more or less selfless than other types of physicians, who treat illnesses and injuries?

    I also think it’s important to remember that a fetus is a potential human being. In the moment, it doesn’t have any thoughts or feelings or “soul” per se, but we ought to think carefully about what we’re doing to the future. If, for no other reason, to differentiate ourselves from the clients of the abortion clinic, who can’t think carefully about anything beyond the hour’s horizon.

    Best,

    Boxer

  121. JDG says:

    Christianity, as it is expressed in North America, declares the chopping up children to be a reasonable and tolerable “choice” made by Christian wimminz. You seem to disagree with this, which is strange, since it’s the theme of Dalrock’s original article.

    What is strange to me is how you managed to narrow the theme of this article to: “Christianity, as it is expressed in North America, declares the chopping up children to be a reasonable and tolerable “choice” made by Christian wimminz. ”

    As for your link, I’m not sure what your point is. You seem to make a habit of siting human sources when contending against biblical teachings. The opinions of man are irrelevant when they oppose Bible based principles.

    Furthermore, nothing you have written lends credibility to your opinion that this society is a Christian matriarchy or that such a thing can even exist.

  122. JDG says:

    Again, a willing acceptance of abortion is one of the planks of many Christian churches today.

    Is this what your link was supposed to be alluding to? You can continue to assert that every self-proclaimed Christian is in fact Christian, but that doesn’t make it true.

    Universities and mainline denominations are filled with “Christians” who are pro-choice, pro-homosexual, and a great many other positions in opposition to God. A great many (nearly all?) of these same also don’t believe in heaven or hell, that mankind has a need for a savior, that Jesus died as a sacrifice for sins, or that he rose again.

    Is it your position that in spite of these minor quirks they are still Christian? If so then your understanding of “Christian” is at odds with the Bible.

  123. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Good talking to you.

    Boxer

  124. JDG says:

    Thank you for ending this on a cordial note. I hope we can still have an interesting conversation or two in the future.

  125. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    Thank you for ending this on a cordial note. I hope we can still have an interesting conversation or two in the future.

    Of course we can. I respect anyone who argues in good faith, whether or not there’s consensus. (Note: I also enjoy the people who flame, troll and/or make fun of me, provided they are actually skillful and/or funny about it.)

    If you weren’t numbered among these chosen few, I’d have never have responded.

    Best,

    Boxer

  126. Tom K. says:

    Dr. Bernard Nathanson not only became pro-life but a Christian. He was baptized Catholic in 1996 and chose as his godmother a nun who once spent more than a year in jail for blocking abortion clinics.Here is one link to his story http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/02/2806/.

    He tells of living a life of debauchery and hedonism while building his abortion empire. He has testified before congress as to the lies he and his pro-abortion allies told to exaggerate the number of abortions. And today is is heartily ASHAMED of his actions.

    Too bad so few women are. 30 million women murderers, and yet the social scientists tell us female serial killers are rare. Perhaps they’re just not looking in the right places for them.

  127. Seems quite funny, maybe we are to thank feminists for shining a light on the poor behaviour of women that has never, ever changed? If we are to believe that women were having almost the same amount of abortions now, when it is legal, as they were having in the 1930s, when it wasn’t. I thank our resident feminist, Michelle, for bringing this to our attention. Also shows that women were no different then as they are now, probably doing all sorts of things they would then later lie about.

    Once again, at least now men have had their eyes opened to the true nature of women. They have always detested having children, then as now, and would happily have a way of terminating that child if it did not serve their purpose.

  128. Looking Glass says:

    Pre-Roe vs Wade, “back alley” abortions weren’t done in the “back of alleys” but that is where the entrance to the doctor’s office was that would perform them. But, that being said, it was neither cheap nor readily available. It was illegal, so abortion was mostly only available to rich, white Women and in a few major cities.

    Though the history of abortion is very long. I guess you can say it “helps” that about 80% of a flower garden will easily. I can’t find the references at the moment, but somewhere in the Middle Ages, copies of a book of herbalism got around. It lead to a lot of herbalists being executed for selling abortion compounds.

    Maybe the shorter version: Sluts will always be sluts, but the modern legal system has made us all a party to the murders.

  129. Opus says:

    I was most interested in JDG’s check-list for Christians. Clearly a lot of people who will tell you they are Christians do not believe in all the items on his list; Leo Tolstoy for example did not accept that Christ died ‘as a sacrifice for sins’ – of course this gave him a lot of trouble with the Orthodox Church. If my recent Cathedral experience is anything to go by there are also a lot of other beliefs which are now tacitly accepted as Christian (as holy writ) but which seem to me to have more to do with bleeding-heart liberal masochism than anything else – the sort of thing an SJW eats for breakfast. So that counts me out, and yet if and when the Muslims start the next civil war, I feel that to explain that my lack of belief in some or most of the items on JDG’s list will spare me from their sword.

    Faith is more important than works; I understand that, but works are an outward sign of something internal. As I passed my Parish Church early this morning and looking in – about twenty elderly people about to depart – I could not help but see that the Vicar was a Transvestite; either that or the Reverend was a woman. That surely cannot be – if not Biblical, at least – in the spirit of The Christian Religion as it has been practiced since its foundation. It will surely turn The Anglicans into the Sunday branch of The Women’s Institute, with men only welcome if they leave their testicles at the door. I think Johnson must be right – on the subject of women preachers – “A woman preacher is like a dog on its hind legs. It is not done well but one is surprised to find it done at all”. Being lectured by a man is one thing – one can always disagree without a flood of tears – but no woman has successfully tried lecturing me since I was in Primary School: It does not go down well. Sadly, creating a disturbance in a place of worship is a criminal offence so I have little choice but to stay away.

  130. Tam the Bam says:

    “.. the pig and cow are more developed beings with more sensitivity and more eagerness to stay alive.”
    It’s a poor lookout for chronically depressed/PTSD people in that case. Are the docs not even going to wait for them to off themselves?

  131. Looking Glass says:

    @Opus:

    Since you’re in the UK, it’s rather hard to find Christians in a church there. Especially an Anglican one.

  132. Socons ware willing,on one end of the spectrum ,to promote the notion that men are more than 100% responsible (hence the woman is less than 0% responsible) for single unwed births, The other end of the socon spectrum isn’t much better. Its merely a tacit acceptance of the extreme socon position.

    So far so good

    The dichotomy that leads to futility by the main pedestrian ideologies is said to be….. “Democrat position vs. Republican position” where the Dems position is that the unborn life is expendable and the Republican (socon) position is that the man’s life is expendable.

    I didn’t read all 150 comments. Maybe someone else caught the moral bankruptcy of this juxtaposition and in doing so (I’m not optimistic) maybe some start to see the effect of the convoluted tendency to celebrate the drumbeat of tearing down socons. Not certain socon positions…many of which can be righteously attacked. Its not even the tearing down of socons. Its is a subtle propagation of a parody based on real observations of an aspect of socons were they are misguided.

    The article Dalrock has written doesnt offer any reasonable segue to the socon thing. Any rational person who opposes abortion, if asked which group (Dem or Rep) could have abortion pinned on them (I realize it isnt that simple) would not pin it on socons. Dragging socons in is revelatory of something unstated which, even if not present in the thinking of the poster making the juxtaposition, is a handy tool for abortion defenders. The moral relativism tool, if deployed here, SHOULD fail miserably though if the question can even penetrate the fog of immorality that blinds the “ideologically nuanced” . Is it really immorally equivalent to hold men financially responsible for a child he was not solely responsible for creating as compared to killing an unborn child?

    It should be obvious that the comparison made between the two positions, setting them against one another, is (if inadvertently on the part of the commenter) a subtle form of the pro abortion argument we’ve all heard before…..”Oh you oppose abortion but you are likely also against welfare and food stamps so your opinion is negated.

    This is the single best illustration Ive seen of why I have become disinterested in the comments/ discussions here as I watch people who hold in common perhaps 70% of the core values you’d find in a so called “socon” (sure socons may hold contradictory views in the other 30% but many of us here have more commonality with socons than with any other group, and certainly than with a group that would see rhetorical value in the equivalence between a mans forced resourcing of a child and the destruction/killing of that child ) offer praise and agreement to the deconstruction of those values by way of association with socons.

  133. Opus says:

    @Looking Glass

    Your assertion is not entirely true as a Church is still the venue of choice for Baptism, Marriage and Funerals (such great and usually ancient Architecture) indeed my local Parish Church (you just have to see it) usually mistaken as a Wren – and thus comparatively new – is easily the most beautiful building in the locality.

  134. MarcusD says:

  135. JDG says:

    empathologism says:
    August 9, 2015 at 10:03 am

    I hear you, but I still have to deal with the almost daily frustration of interacting with people who think that traditional Christian values are egalitarian and sometimes worse. It can be frustrating to say the least.

    Most of my friends identify as social conservatives, and we do have much in common. Some of them are not feminist even though they identify as social conservative, so it can be confusing. However, for the rest, that feminist hump is a big one for me. A feminist is a feminist, and it was really an eye opener when I realized why I was so unpopular among many of my church going peers (usually attendees of other local churches that we partnered with in ministry). I still get “the look” when I run into some of them at various church functions.

    But you are correct. We have more in common with them then we do with any other group that I can think of, and I have been able to persuade a few social conservatives to forego their feminist beliefs. I have not been able to do that with any other type of feminist.

  136. Okay, not willing to concede that shame doesn’t work. How about we stop providing facilities for women to have these procedures performed? If a woman wants one so bad she can try her luck in the ally and hopefully die in the process. Maybe that will make her think about it a bit more. Instead we provide coaching, sterile, “safe” “procedures” that medically and emotionally sterilize the process of MURDER. Coat-hangers and more coat-hangers (preferably reused ones).

  137. Gunner Q says:

    “Both groups will leave themselves open to the observation that they are more concerned with the feelings of the adult who decides to do the killing and selling than the unborn child being killed and sold off for parts.”

    Which is why they argue it isn’t a child, it’s a cancerous tissue mass. (Also why they argued for fetal stem cell research. That argument has vanished now that biologists have figured out how to create such cells from adult tissues.)

    I’ve had some success pointing out how they’re choosing a convenient definition of human life over a conservative one. They seem to uphold “conservative” like some kind of security blanket.

  138. JDG says:

    MarcusD says:
    August 9, 2015 at 11:22 am

    There is a post over at Spawny’s Space titled “Skanque” about Amy Schumer who became upset when an radio show host implied that Schumer’s character in “Trainwreck” was “skanky.” Schumer is also known for her infamous line “I can catch a dick whenever I want.”

    I think Joana Ramiro and Amy Schumer prime examples of what a society can expect when they encourage women to be “strong and independent.” Skanky about sums it up.

  139. Liz says:

    One of Amy Schumer’s punchlines actually is, “I don’t know why that call it Plan B, that’s my plan A.” (insert bag-o-laughs) Yeah, it’s creepy.

  140. Might be her plan A, it’s God’s plan J.

  141. Boxer says:

    Dear Empath:

    The dichotomy that leads to futility by the main pedestrian ideologies is said to be….. “Democrat position vs. Republican position” where the Dems position is that the unborn life is expendable and the Republican (socon) position is that the man’s life is expendable.

    Yeah, TFH said that above. Establishment politics is matriarchal, and all the supposed differences between establishment players are cosmetic. It’s OK to talk about building a wall at the border, but nobody wants to talk about abolishing divorce courts — much less abortion clinics.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  142. @Boxer, Trump starts talking about the Matriarchy and there be a lot more blood shooting out of peoples eyes and so forth. He already tangled with Faux’s resident Progressive Feminist and the shrieking started moments later.

  143. Boxer, yes he said it and I was paraphrasing his words to show how morally bankrupt they are and how insidious that particular breed of ideological Trojan horse is. He wasn’t talking about or limiting his words to “establishment politics”, which I could not care less about. Though Ive not done the thought experiment where every conceivable circumstance is weighed by putting them together in a metaphorical sinking rowboat and deciding which to save, I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that sets a mans provider-by-fiat life sentence as comparable to killing a baby. One who sees those as comparable and that comparison as rhetorically functional has expressed a lower view on the life of the unborn than what is required to truly oppose abortion.

  144. Boxer says:

    Dear Empath:

    I didn’t read TFH’s comment as a strict moral comparison, but as an example of the devious nature of our great and mighty (lol) social engineers.

    Whether or not these two scenarios are actually equivalent in a moral sense (like you, I don’t think they’re comparable), they have the desired effect of atomizing men and women in the legal sphere to which they apply. From a pragmatic perspective, TFH is right (and I think you’re right too — he’s talking politics and you’re talking ethics).

    Boxer

  145. mrteebs says:

    I don’t like Megyn Kelly and never really have. Her smug “I got here because of my brains and I have a sacred obligation to stand up for my less cosmetically blessed sisters” is condescending and transparent. She thinks she’s hot stuff and Fox trades on her legs as much as anything else. They don’t usually put her behind a desk for a reason.

    I did not watch the debates, but it did not surprise me that of all the important questions that could have been posed, standing up for her disenfranchised sisters was the moment she relished the most. It is very hard to take a network seriously that works overtime to make certain the maximum amount of cleavage and legs are on display – all while seriously intoning that sexism is a deep and abiding problem, and assuring us that they are “fair and balanced.”

    Fox News serves as Exhibit A in how socons are so heavily invested in promoting Team Woman, lest they be accused of that most feared of all epithets: sexist.

    I don’t like Trump either. The only thing refreshing about the man is his candor compared to the Republican establishment, but the same could be said about someone like Amanda Marcotte who functions without any line filtering at all and has a remarkable degree of candor, allowing us to have a laproscopic view of the cancer that pervades her brain cells.

  146. cptnemo2013 says:

    Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.

  147. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    No surprise that the govt./media complex didn’t want to talk about “Planned” Parenthood selling body parts and gave way more coverage to a dead lion in Zimbabwe and a civil war battle flag. Could you imagine the outrage and coverage if a group was selling dead lion parts.

  148. mrteebs says:

    Empathological,

    I read the TFH’s words early on in the comments, but did not perceive that he was treating them as vectors of the same magnitude. I think (hope) we all agree that a life sentence with possibility of parole (or escape) is not a death sentence.

    Frankly, I see them both as vectors pointed in roughly the same direction, of differing magnitude, and as merely symptoms of the root issue: rejection of God’s ways.

    Some here will disagree and insist that human reasoning and evolution alone can point us to what is moral and what is not, and that cultural prohibitions against murder, incest, stealing, etc. are all eventually discernible if we can only build a model with sufficient degrees of freedom and sufficient variables to fully characterize the outcomes that may not be immediately apparent, but become visible if we observe the system long enough. I disagree. If the 10 commandments are intuitive, there was no need for Moses to climb the mountain. Besides, the majority of people agree with most of the commandments, except those proscribing sexual conduct – which is generally re-engineered to read “whatever consenting adults want.”

  149. feeriker says:

    Since you’re in the UK, it’s almost impossible to find Christians in a church there. Especially an Anglican one.

    Fixed.

    This is not to say that there aren’t any Christ followers in the UK, but they are, in my experience, preciously few and far between and will almost never be found in an Anglican “church.”*

    (* Universal axiom, applicable to any nation in any corner of the globe: any “church” established by a temporal government is a political artifice that will be devoid of Christ followers. In addition to the Anglican church, think: the Lutheran church in Germany and Scandinavia, the Dutch Reformed in the Netherlands, and the various nationally flavored branches of the Orthdox church in Greece and Eastern Europe. Even Catholicism has been co-opted by governments as an official arm [Spain is one egregious example]).

  150. em says:

    Boxer, it isn’t only about how one reads and interprets the words. What connection to the point(s) raised in Dalrock’s post is there to the comparison of Republican views and Democrat views as expressed? What conclusion can you draw about abortion as an ethical/moral matter…..in a vacuum, meaning not as compared to some other evil but in and of itself based on his comments? Following an article about punching back hard at abortion the comment is like, when being accused of something bad someone saying…”but, but, but they do it too”

    Surely you can see that the comparison, regardless of intended equivalence, can be leveraged now or later by those who support abortion. Its neither here nor there that you agree or not, but I’m surprised you are missing the fullness of what I am describing.

  151. empathologism says:

    Im in moderation.

    [D: You didn’t type in your full handle so it treated you as a brand new commenter.]

  152. Opus says:

    @Feeriker

    I can only imagine that those elderly people leaving church this morning might be somewhat hurt or perhaps surprised by your assertion, and yet they are clearly a very different sort of Christian to some, say The Salvation Army (they really believe whereas as one Anglican said to me ‘I did not say I was a believer, I said I was an accepter’). Anglicanism is as far from Happy Clappy or Black Gospel as one can get – an unbroken chain of near a thousand years of liturgical music to begin with – and also avoids the trappings of Catholicism.

    America in its founding provided that there should be no provision of an establishment of religion, yet I rather like Thomas Hobbes’ view that the religion of the country should be a decision of The Prince. Catholicism in Spain is as Spanish as Paella, in the same way that England is Anglican. People may not attend much but they would be most upset were it to not be there when needed. To begin with the State pay a large sum every year to ensure that there are Vicars attending Hospitals for the spiritual care of the ill, and The Military also has its share of Vicars. Most schools for young children are affiliated to the CofE. The Head of State is God’s representative and The Archbishop of Canterbury is responsible for ensuring that the new Head of State follows in the line from the last Henry as Defender of The Faith. This is therefore as much culture as it is personal religion. It seems very natural to us. A blog such as Archbishop Cranmer’s gives a flavour of present day Anglicanism – I do not comment there as my views would be anathema to them, some of whom I ‘know’ from another now defunct though not specifically religious blog. Why I should find Dalrock’s – and congenial is thus a puzzle.

  153. theasdgamer says:

    The point is that shame didn’t prevent abortion.

    Execution does, however. Lots of churchians don’t want to go down that road. (If I stepped on any toes, too bad.)

  154. Spacetraveller says:

    Oscar,

    “God will judge each human being that He created in His image – male AND female – according to his/her works (Rev 20:11-15). Any philosophy that teaches otherwise is un-Biblical, and therefore NOT Christian in nature.”

    Thank you.
    This is also what I learned in catechism. Both men and women have moral agency – and both are judged by God. And yet there are those who continue to deny the moral agency of women.

    Mrteebs,

    Thank you for a comprehensive annihilation of the circular thinking you rebut.

    If two issues ‘get my goat’ in this world, it is abortion and divorce.
    When I was 15, my neighbour (aged 14) announced (quite brazenly, I might add) that she had just, that morning, had an abortion. I never spoke to her again.

    A few years ago, a colleague came to me when she heard I was going on a trip to the Vatican. She pressed 10 francs into my hand and said, ‘pray for me when you go to Rome’.
    The long and the short is, she had been pregnant 3 times in her life, and all 3 times had had an abortion. Now, at 42, she was shacked up with a 66 year old man (in a ‘relationship’ that was going nowhere). He had adult children and didn’t want any more children, but she did.

    She was in some sort of spiritual hell and for a good half-hour, she poured her heart out to me. It was unfortunately a torture for me to sit there listening to all this.I had had no warning that this deeply disturbing conversation was coming.
    My ‘Mission impossible’ was to go to the Sistine Chapel and pray for her to do an ‘oops’ on this 66 year old man, despite her having thrown away 3 chances that God had already given her in the past.

    I almost vomited right there and then. I gave her back her 10 francs and told her to find a priest to talk to.

    I did pray for her when I went to the Vatican.
    But I have never been able to stomach seeing her since then.

    Whilst I feel like a coward for avoiding her, I can’t help but wonder how it was possible for her to go through with THREE abortions? Was one not already bad enough?

    In many ways, Michelle (as ever) is partially right. Sometimes one doesn’t really need to shame those who do this heinous crime for their own deeds condemn them.

    But…there are those who manage to break through even this powerful barrier and come out proclaiming that they did a good thing.
    For these people, it is essential to come down as hard as possible on them. They are dangerous precisely because they have broken through a barrier that is not within normal human capabilities to breach.
    The fact that they manage to break through this psychological barrier is testament to their ‘loose canon’ potential.
    If their own intrinsic shame is not sufficient, they ABSOLUTELY need extrinsic shame.
    The worst thing we, as a society can do is ‘normalise’ abortion to the degree that this extrinsic shame is removed.

  155. theasdgamer says:

    @ mrteebs

    I am much more inclined to believe CDC data than Michelle’s fantasy football scores.

    I prefer the term, SWAG. Swingin’, wild-ass guess.

  156. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Again…..an absolute stunner of a post Mr.D!………..so many great comments so little time!

    I have been seeing on Fox News lately about the undercover cameras that caught the Planned Parent Hood(Murder Incorporated) employees on video.I saw them(Wimminz…go figure!)).They are SICK! I know two abortion doctors here in Toronto(Jewish doctors).DO I respect them?…..HELL NO!…I consider them the scum of the earth.I have more respect for a “Mob Hitman”.At least his target of assassination is able to defend himself! In WW2,approximately 55 million people died via the war.Since 1973 and Roe vs Wade in North America we have “disposed” of 50 million unborn(and counting).When we look at the atrocities of guys like Hitler,Stalin,Mussolini,Hirohito etc…etc. What do we compare them to?….Modern day wimminz that use “MURDER” as a form of birth control?????……..Modern wimminz can kill as easily(if not easier) than the greatest murderers that we have seen in the last 100 years………….Think about that!!!!!!!

  157. mrteebs says:

    I used the tinyURL link that Robin Munn provided above to go and read Michelle’s source (The Oxford Companion to United States History). I encourage everyone here to do so, as this is an enlightening lesson on what passes for unbiased scholarship these days.

    Here is the
    link again.

    The whole thing read like a pro-arbortion apologetic, almost from sentence #1. I scrolled to the bottom and that is where the jackpot can be found: the name of the author, Carole R. McCann. Here are her credentials, courtesy of wikipedia…

    Carole McCann PhD is a professor in Gender and Women’s Studies and American Studies at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC).

    McCann is the author of Birth Control Politics in the United States, 1916-1945[1] and co-author of Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives along with Seung-Kyung Kim. The Feminist Theory Reader was updated with new material and rereleased by Routledge. Edition 2 was published July 2009. It remains a foundational text for gender and women’s studies courses.

    Clearly, no one could be more impartial to the topic at hand.

  158. Boxer says:

    Dear Empath:

    Please see below…

    Boxer, it isn’t only about how one reads and interprets the words. What connection to the point(s) raised in Dalrock’s post is there to the comparison of Republican views and Democrat views as expressed?

    While the OP doesn’t refer to contemporary political parties, it does break down different positions commonly expressed by members of these parties. (Of course these are broad generalities, some liberal democrats are technically pro-life, of course, and vice-versa; but, I got TFH’s allusions regardless, and I think it’s a fair extrapolation.)

    What conclusion can you draw about abortion as an ethical/moral matter…..in a vacuum, meaning not as compared to some other evil but in and of itself based on his comments? Following an article about punching back hard at abortion the comment is like, when being accused of something bad someone saying…”but, but, but they do it too”

    Honestly, the topic is so ghastly, and the behavior of the butchers and buyers on those leaked videos so deranged, that the depravity transcends ethics and morality, and becomes an issue that ought to be discussed from all these angles. Even the most die-hard pro-choice nutter is hard pressed to celebrate the sale of baby parts for profit, and that’s what I took to be the point of the original article. We should make hay and start talking about this while it’s a hot topic, and do it tactically so as to have our enemies fighting among themselves.

    Surely you can see that the comparison, regardless of intended equivalence, can be leveraged now or later by those who support abortion. Its neither here nor there that you agree or not, but I’m surprised you are missing the fullness of what I am describing.

    Thanks for breaking it down. Theoretically you’re right. It’s possible that some future movement could excuse away abortion by likening it to “an inconvenience like child support”. I guess I find that a less pressing point than the need to start talking frankly to those on the fence.

    Always enjoy your comments here, by the way.

    Best,

    Boxer

  159. mrteebs says:

    @theasdgamer

    I always wondered how SWAG differed from WAG. Now I know.

  160. Boxer says:

    Dear Mark:

    I know two abortion doctors here in Toronto(Jewish doctors).DO I respect them?…..HELL NO!…

    I’m not telling tales out of school, because he’s been dead for a few years; but one of the most dedicated abortionists in Calgary, for many years, was a Mormon physician. Everyone seemed to know his “charity work” and no one called him on it (I imagine it was because of the size of his tithing cheques).

    How to describe an abortion doctor? Complete, total trash, a walking, animated garbage-can, filled and overflowing with the stench of its own neuroses.

    Incidentally, did you happen to catch Marcus D’s illuminating National Post article on the (supposedly observant) Jewish chick, who iced her own child so that she could further her hobby playing city-league volleyball? Really blows your mind what these wimminz can do on the flimsiest of excuses.

    Best,

    Boxer

  161. Just Saying says:

    95% of women who murder their unborn children (and have them sold for parts) feel good about having done so!

    You know, I don’t believe any life has inherent value – it’s all about the potential value of the person, so in the over all scheme of things a woman who will destroy something of inherent greater potential than she will ever have, needs to be destroyed and kept as a incubator for the more valuable potential within her. Then after having been useful for that task, using her for parts would be the overall best usage for her parts. I think we have this whole thing backwards – leave the clinics, kill the women, sell their parts and adopt out the babies a MUCH more effective operation, and preserves the higher-value life for society to improve.

  162. “JDG says:
    August 8, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    The next logical step is to start knocking off the elderly, or aren’t we already there too? “

    Patience, my friend, that’s coming soon.

    “Boxer says:
    August 8, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    There is no such thing as a Christian matriarchy.”

    “Yes, there is. You’re living in one, right now. “

    This is hardly the case. Make it “pseudo-Christian matriarchy,” and I’ll buy it. You aren’t living in a Christian matriarchy no matter how much you may insist it exists. Either you are trolling, or are simply ignorant of what Christianity is. Most likely both.

    There are many “churches” that are pro-abortion and those “churches” have denied the faith. That you think those groups are Christian simply marks you as an unserious or ignorant individual.

    “Boxer says:
    August 8, 2015 at 6:16 pm

    So, you (and Oscar) feel that if someone is doing something you dislike, you can unilaterally declare them not to be a Christian?

    “Most of the wimminz who are killing their kids are accurately described as Christians, whether or not you personally want to excommunicate them, or call them “pagans” or what not.”

    This is not a play on words. When someone is doing something that is against what God has revealed in His word, it is not Christian. God is quite unilateral in what He says and simply applying what He has said to society does not mean we are making the judgment, simply pointing out what God has said. When a woman murders her child, she ceases to be a Christian until she confesses her crime before God and the Church and sincerely asks forgiveness. She must repudiate what she did, and own it for what it was.

    This is not a matter of what any Christian desires. It is a matter of what God requires if one is to escape His just wrath as murderers will not enter the Kingdom.

    “Opus says:
    August 9, 2015 at 4:54 am

    Leo Tolstoy for example did not accept that Christ died ‘as a sacrifice for sins’ – of course this gave him a lot of trouble with the Orthodox Church.”

    Of course it would give him problems. He denied a central doctrine of Christianity, placing him outside of the faith.

    “Faith is more important than works; I understand that, but works are an outward sign of something internal.“

    You aren’t too far off, but far enough. The Book of James places works on an equal footing with faith. In fact a faith that does not produce works is a dead faith and is equated with the faith of demons who believe and tremble. Their faith, however, produces nothing of any import relative to God.

    “…either that or the Reverend was a woman. That surely cannot be – if not Biblical, at least – in the spirit of The Christian Religion as it has been practiced since its foundation. It will surely turn The Anglicans into the Sunday branch of The Women’s Institute, with men only welcome if they leave their testicles at the door.”

    The Church of England, and its child in the US, the Episcopal Church, is on its last legs. Many churches in the UK have already become museums in waiting. Some have been converted to Mosques as their parishes have already died. Only the southern cone is showing any vitality. The United Methodist Church has, so far, been saved by its African mission field and has driven the liberals into a corner where they tremble in fear wonder if they are about to lose all they have gained through their subversion. They may just lose it all in the next general conference, but we’ll have to see.

    Almost every denomination that has allowed women into ordained ministry has fallen on hard times and is losing members hand over fist. The only exceptions are Pentecostal denominations and they are beginning to show the initial stages of rot.

    “mrteebs says:
    August 9, 2015 at 4:16 pm
    @theasdgamer
    I always wondered how SWAG differed from WAG. Now I know.”

    A SWAG is a Scientific WAG, not a “swingin’ WAG. They’re both old Engineering terms.

  163. MarcusD says:

    Howard Stern and Megyn Kelly discuss breasts, penises & Republican litmus tests about Fox News

  164. MarcusD says:

    Here’s the article for those looking for it:

    Killing Your Child for Volleyball
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351298/killing-your-child-volleyball-david-french

  165. Isa says:

    @Boxer
    I knew a girl training in Ob/Gyn that did a rotation as an abortionist. Caused her to switch her specialty as the raw monetary inducement and unnecessary procedures/intense manipulation to gain more “clients” spoke against her crunchy liberal sympathies. If she had wanted that life, she would have sold pharmaceuticals.

    I’m also not sure as to why certain people take so much time saying this and that and the other person aren’t Christian. Frankly, the only person that thinks like you is you, so are you the only Christian? How can you know it’s not you but your neighbor Todd? Best to focus on more important matters.

  166. mrteebs says:

    Trump is refusing to back down and I applaud him in that respect. Ironic to me that even my wife thinks Trump is the “pig” for speaking the truth. The women he castigates are fat and they are pigs. Seems there is nothing – absolutely nothing – that is anathema for a man like a succinct and accurate portrayal of a woman’s looks and personality. Unless, of course it is another women doing the portrayal. Kind of like Hillary-bashing being off limits for anyone but Carly Fiorina.

  167. mrteebs says:

    @theasdgamer

    Apparently Sophisticated WAG is also an acceptable definition. That’s the one I’ll stick with as it accurately describes the ridiculous new spreadsheet that has been thrust upon us by one of our senior executives for calculating the NPV of new products. A guess to 6 decimal places of precision that is itself the result of an equation with unsubstantiatable guesses from 11 other spreadsheet cells is still ….. a guess.

  168. mrteebs says:

    Apparently, God did not think to consult commenters Michelle and Dirk before deciding whether shame might be effective.

    “This is your lot, the portion measured to you from Me,” declares the Lord, “Because you have forgotten Me and trusted in falsehood. So I Myself have also stripped your skirts off over your face, that your shame may be seen. As for your adulteries and your lustful neighings, the lewdness of your prostitution on the hills in the field, I have seen your abominations. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! How long will you remain unclean?”

    Jeremiah 13:25-27

    Hmmm. Sounds to me an awful lot like Someone desiring to effect a behavior change, with shame as a useful part of the arsenal.

  169. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer says:
    August 8, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    I’m late getting back to the party. Been busy. Shall we?

    First, I’ll note that you can’t provide a quote in which I state that women are not responsible for their own actions. The reason you can’t provide such a quote is that I’ve never written such a thing. And the reason I’ve never written such a thing is that I believe no such thing. In fact, I believe, and have written many times on this blog, the opposite. In fact, I wrote the opposite in this very thread.

    “God will judge each human being that He created in His image – male AND female – according to his/her works (Rev 20:11-15). Any philosophy that teaches otherwise is un-Biblical, and therefore NOT Christian in nature.”

    The idea that some adult humans with intact brains are not responsible for their actions is a symptom of our culture’s drift away from its Christian roots.

    Second, I’ll note that you seem to misunderstand the Biblical meaning of the word “pagan”. Biblically speaking, a “pagan” is one who does not know God.

    1 Thessalonians 4:4-5 that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God;

    Biblically, a pagan is merely a Godless (NOT godless) person. In other words, one doesn’t have to identify as a Wiccan, or a Druid to be a pagan. More importantly, one can identify as a Christian and yet be a pagan. That brings me to my next point.

    You seem to misunderstand what it means to be a Christian. This is not surprising, since you’ve stated that you are not a Christian. For the purposes of this conversation, the first thing you need to understand is that there are many counterfeit Christians. Most here refer to them as churchians. Christ warned us about them. In fact, He warned us that MOST people who identify as Christians are counterfeits.

    Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

    21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    How do we distinguish the counterfeits from the genuine? Christ gave us a method. Observe their “fruit” (the natural results of what they truly believe).

    Matthew 7:16 “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”

    So, by what fruit can we distinguish a Godly person from a Godless (pagan) person? We look for the fruit of the Spirit vs. the works of the flesh.

    Galatians 5:19 The works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

    Please explain, friend Boxer, which fruit do the “feral… protestant, catholic and jewish wimminz” who get abortions produce? Do they produce the works of the flesh, or do they produce the fruit of the Spirit? Which fruit does American culture produce in greater abundance? Does it produce the works of the flesh, or does it produce the fruit of the Spirit?

    “The abortion trend”, then, has EVERYTHING to do with Godlessness (i.e., paganism). It’s a natural outgrowth (a fruit) of the flesh and its indulgence. It’s a rejection of the Biblical (and therefore Judeo-Christian) principle that every human is created in God’s image, and therefore endowed with moral worth and dignity. Abortion – as all murder – is an abomination because it is a violation of the very image of God.

    Now I’ll address your points directly.

    “1. You have provided no historical sources for this contention. Can you kick one out to support this nonsense?”

    Actually, I provided three historical sources describing pagan ritual child sacrifice above. Please read those. I’m surprised you’re unaware of how widespread infanticide and abortion were in the ancient world. I thought you were well read.

    http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/infanticide-roman-empire-110505.htm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion#Greco-Roman_world

    I highly recommend Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason” as an excellent source for what the Church did about it.

    “2. Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans, nor ‘most other pagan cultures’ murdered babies with the ferocity of the Christian/Jewish society you live in.”

    Does the society I live in produce the works of the flesh, or the fruit of the Spirit in greater abundance? Please answer the question directly.

    “Thus, by your own logic, murdering babies must be a Christian/Jewish sacrament, as Christians and Jewish wimminz do it more than anyone else, by a long mile.”

    Do those “Christians [sic.] and Jewish wimminz” produce the works of the flesh, or the fruit of the Spirit? Please answer the question directly.

    “Yes, there is. You’re living in one [Christian matriarchy], right now.”

    Again, does the society I live in produce the works of the flesh, or the fruit of the Spirit in greater abundance? Please answer the question directly.

    “Try blaming the actual Christian and Jewish wimminz who are murdering their own children, rather than blaming “pagans” (that don’t exist) for this shit.”

    Again, do those “Christian and Jewish wimminz who are murdering their own children” produce the works of the flesh, or the fruit of the Spirit? Please answer the question directly.

    I thank you in advance for your direct answers to my direct questions.

  170. Oscar says:

    @ Quartermaster says:
    August 9, 2015 at 6:07 pm

    “JDG says:
    August 8, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    ‘The next logical step is to start knocking off the elderly, or aren’t we already there too? ‘

    Patience, my friend, that’s coming soon.”

    We’re already there.

    “Some Belgian doctors are ending their patients’ lives early without their specific request, according to a study published this month in the Journal of Medical Ethics.”

    http://www.worldmag.com/2015/06/from_end_of_life_counseling_to_euthanasia_without_consent

  171. GeminiXcX says:

    @Boxer & JDG

    I reviewed your discussion above, and my input is more for you, Mr Boxer:

    Anyone can claim to be a Christian, yet belie that claim with their actions. One can say “I believe!”, and such, but if what they do is unbiblical. . .

    James 1:22
    Matthew 7:19-27

    The God of the Universe ‘sees things for the way they are’. Just because an individual, or group, does/allows something ‘in the name of Jesus’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘the Lord’ approves of it in any way.

    1 Timothy 3:3,4 applies to within the church as well.

    We don’t live in a “Christian Matriarchy”, as those two terms are not compatible. We live in a “Churchian Matriarchy”; as any real Christianity (and the Bible that must be solely based on) has been tossed aside by unbelievers and Christendom alike. What is claimed by religious people is irrelevant; what they actually do is what matters (and will get them judged).

    Not posting this to try to attack you in any way; you seem genuinely puzzled and pissed off (and rightfully so) about what so-called “believers” are tolerating/encouraging/outright facilitating.

    Regards,

    -GXcX

  172. GeminiXcX says:

    @Oscar.

    There you are; I knew there was a third party heavily involved, but I couldn’t recall the name when addressing my post just above this one. Your two comments appeared after I posted mine, and the page subsequently ‘refreshed’.

    Much more detailed than mine; you understand these unfortunate things all too well.

    Regards,

    -GXcX

  173. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    I know two abortion doctors here in Toronto(Jewish doctors).DO I respect them?…..HELL NO!…

    In Canada “Dr.” Henry Morgantaller was given the Order of Canada, equivalent to the USA’s Medal of Freedom or the British MBE. Morgantaller said he performed over 1000 abortions (someone correct me if wrong). As a concentration camp survivor and Dr. he didn’t respect life. He passed away a couple of years ago.My mother’s friend who was Jewish was awarded the Order of Canada. I am not sure she would have taken it if she knew Morgantaller was going to receive it years later after she passed away.

  174. GeminiXcX says:

    theasdgamer

    “I prefer the term, SWAG. Swingin’, wild-ass guess.”

    When GXcX hits ‘the scene’ on a Friday night, he first picks-up his SWAG:

    SmoothWingmanAsdGamer

    -GXcX

  175. Boxer says:

    Dear Isa:

    Are you an Arab Christian? Just curious (it’s your name that makes me ask).

    In any event…

    I’m also not sure as to why certain people take so much time saying this and that and the other person aren’t Christian. Frankly, the only person that thinks like you is you, so are you the only Christian? How can you know it’s not you but your neighbor Todd? Best to focus on more important matters.

    It’s annoying, but I can’t really blame them, and in a way I think it’s humorous that there are so many examples this weekend to point to. I suspect it’s sort of a hindbrain thing that men are just wired to do, when faced with bad female behavior.

    Christian women are aborting their kids? That can’t be. Firstly, they’re not actually Christians, so they’re not our problem, and most importantly, it’s all a conspiracy, started by a resurgence of the Moloch cult. These Moloch pagans are all around us. We need to fight the Moloch worshippers!”

    For many Christian men, it’s easier to let the male rationalization hamsters run wild, creating a bunch of imaginary (male) enemies to valiantly fight, than to criticize Christian women, for doing what Christian women are doing all on their own, with the full support of both Christian churches and the Christian matriarchal state.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  176. Boxer says:

    Dear Isa:

    Are you an Arab Christian? Just curious (it’s your name that makes me ask).

    In any event…

    I’m also not sure as to why certain people take so much time saying this and that and the other person aren’t Christian. Frankly, the only person that thinks like you is you, so are you the only Christian? How can you know it’s not you but your neighbor Todd? Best to focus on more important matters.

    It’s annoying, but I can’t really blame them, and in a way I think it’s humorous that there are so many examples this weekend to point to. I suspect it’s sort of a hindbrain thing that men are just wired to do, when faced with bad female behavior.

    Christian women are aborting their kids? That can’t be. Firstly, they’re not actually Christians, so they’re not our problem, and most importantly, it’s all a conspiracy, started by a resurgence of the Moloch cult. These Moloch pagans are all around us. We need to fight the Moloch worshippers!”

    For many Christian men, it’s easier to let the male rationalization hamsters run wild, creating a bunch of imaginary (male) enemies to valiantly fight, than to criticize Christian women, for doing what Christian women are doing all on their own, with the full support of both Christian churches and the Christian matriarchal state.

    Regards,
    Boxer

  177. Boxer says:

    Dear Gemini:

    We don’t live in a “Christian Matriarchy”, as those two terms are not compatible.

    You guys all sound very much like the Atheists I hang out with. When I point out the obvious fact that most of America is a protestant society, they go completely nuts, ranting about how Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Christian, and that it’s a secular country.

    Sure, that’s all true. Mao wasn’t religious, and China is a secular country too, but it’s still largely a Confucian society.

    In any event, we do live in a Christian matriarchy. Any society that lets women slut it up and then kill the infants that naturally arise from their loose morals is matriarchal, and most of the women who patronize the abortion mills are Christian women, so I think my point was made ten posts ago. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on it, at this point, though.

    Regards,

    Regards,

    -GXcX

    Boxer

  178. JDG says:

    and most of the women who patronize the abortion mills are Christian women

    So much for letting it lie.

    How do you know that these women are in fact Christian?

  179. Mark says:

    @Jack Russell

    “”In Canada “Dr.” Henry Morgantaller was given the Order of Canada””

    Yes he did.That is disgusting! There was a Catholic Priest a few years back that was also awarded the O of C.He refused it.On the grounds that he would not share an award with the likes of Morgantaller. This is a Priest than I can admire. It is a sad state of affairs when a murdering motherf***** like Morgantaller gets the O of C……and a guy like Vito Rizzuto dies not?……WTF?

  180. Dale says:

    @Boxer
    >There is some play in words, of course, but “Christian” means something specific, and our society remains distinctly Christian in character and culture, whether you like it or not. Most of the wimminz who are killing their kids are accurately described as Christians

    (I guess this may be pointless… I wrote this before reading all the subsequent posts. But perhaps will be helpful.)

    In this case I have to disagree with Boxer. A Christian is someone who accepts that Jesus is Lord/master/God, and therefore he/she submits to God’s commands. Such as do not murder.
    Granted, in this life we continue to have a sinful nature, and thus continue to sin, in spite of our decision to stop living for our self and start living for God, or in obedience to God, instead (Gal 5:16-18).
    While we continue to have a sinful nature, when large numbers of a group that claim to be Christian engage in:
    – routine murder
    – routine cross-dressing (Deut 22:5)
    – routine cross-hair lengths (1 Cor 11:14-16)
    – routine drunkenness, gluttony, etc.
    – promoting/approving sinful actions in others (Rom 1:29-32),
    then I have to question whether to accept their claim to be a Christian. Granted, with respect to eternity my “vote” is irrelevant; God decides whether they have surrendered, and thus gain eternal life.
    This is not an excuse for their behaviour. Or a way to ignore it. We are called, in this temporal life, to directly respond to these evil actions; to refuse to associate or even eat with one who calls himself a believer, yet lives in sexual immorality (1 Cor 5:11-13).
    I think the sexual immorality is relevant, as I suspect very few abortions are to women who are victims of genuine rape or who conceived with her own husband. I assume the vast majority were being “empowered women”.

    Given the Galatians passage, there will always be a few sinful Christians who commit one particular sin. Very few (I hope) would murder. Some will lie. And others eat too much (such as me). Or are rude. I cannot deny that some Christians do these things. And such behaviour is to be identified as sin/unacceptable, and requiring consequences.
    But when most of the group are willing to engage in a sin, and also approve of others who do so, then this strains credulity. I think most women, and some men, who go to the churches I have been in are not Christians. Per above, I make no claim to be able to boot them out of heaven; just judging on what I see.

    You would be correct to say that I cannot stop someone else from self-identifying as Christian, regardless of their behaviour/heart. But I have the free will to learn what God commands, to conform myself to those commands, and to point out where someone else is not. Yes, I must judge myself before others, but I can still make judgements about others (Matt 7:1-5, 1 Cor 2:14-16, Matt 18:15-17).
    For example, I would/should refuse to have anything to do with one who calls himself a Christian, yet murders babies for a living.

    Boxer makes a very important point when he says we should start criticizing our (supposed) brothers and sisters who are killing their children. Per 1 Cor 5:11-13, these people should be removed from the believers portion of our services, or entirely. (Early church history apparently had two portions of the service; one part open to all, then a believer’s portion. For us today, forbidding communion would be a start.)
    This refusal to associate with them should continue for as long as this rebellious behaviour continues.

  181. Opus says:

    Religion in England is a curious thing. There is an established church and yet it is not unfair to say that in 1607 the first (and one way) package tour to America was organised from 59 Palace Street Canterbury. Canterbury was within the County of Kent (Cantium: Unconquered – which by-the-way is why down to as late as 1926 the laws in that county differed from those of the rest of the country – though a knowledge of gavelkind was still a requirement for law students when I was one so as to understand old documents) but Kent County was a hot-bed of Non-conformism. The Fifth Monarchy men (to establish the Kingdom of Jesus) who attacked London in 1661 came from there as did Jack Cade (see Henry VI Part 2).

    In the same way that the newspaper that one reads defines ones social class, something similar applies to religion. It is said that The Anglican Church is the Tory party at prayer (what you would call UMC). Methodists are a bit lower-middle and it is said that Baptists are like Methodists but can’t read or write. Obviously groups such as the Catholics, Jews and Mormons are seen as weird and this is explained by their being ethnic (Irish/Polish, East European and American (?!) respectively).

    I am not aware that any former Churches are now Mosques. though one former church where I live (the second best building in town and designed as a Greek Temple) is now a coffee shop. The Mosque (very discreet) is a former public-house, a public house from which on my one and only visit I was lucky enough to escape with my life intact. It was closed down.

    And what do people think of Abortion which is not on demand as it requires the certificated approval of two medically qualified doctors that the mental or physical life of the woman is at risk? No one mentions it, and so it is not a hot potato of an issue even though the doctors sign them like confetti.

  182. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    [M]ost importantly, it’s all a conspiracy, started by a resurgence of the Moloch cult. These Moloch pagans are all around us. We need to fight the Moloch worshippers!”

    There is a cant used among American Protestants/Evangelicals to which you are not privy. It uses the same words as the rest of American English, but there is a shared context about how to think about certain words; for example pagan or Moloch

    In this case: You see both the worship of Christ and the (now defunct) worship of Moloch as sociological phenomenon. We don’t. We know there are spirits, and we know that the spirit(s) who animated Moloch worshippers in the past, and that they still exist and move.

    Neither you nor we have ever heard anyone say they worship Moloch. Because your worldview is blind to the spiritual, and since you have no evidence of a current sociological phenomenon of Moloch, then the idea of a conspiracy of Moloch strikes you are ridiculous. But we don’t need to witness people praise Moloch to know that they act in service to the spirit(s) of Moloch; who are demons.

    Having said that: It’s probably bad form for Protestants/Evangelicals to use the cant in mixed company, but it’s so natural to us we forget others don’t know what we’re on about.

  183. Pingback: An abortion meta-analysis. | Dark Brightness

  184. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer

    I asked you several direct questions. Please return the courtesy I extended you by addressing your concerns directly and directly answer my direct questions.

    Thank you.

  185. Oscar says:

    @ Cane Caldo says:
    August 10, 2015 at 3:30 am

    “Having said that: It’s probably bad form for Protestants/Evangelicals to use the cant in mixed company, but it’s so natural to us we forget others don’t know what we’re on about.”

    You’re right, as usual.

  186. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t like Megyn Kelly and never really have. Her smug “I got here because of my brains and I have a sacred obligation to stand up for my less cosmetically blessed sisters” is condescending and transparent. She thinks she’s hot stuff and Fox trades on her legs as much as anything else. They don’t usually put her behind a desk for a reason.

    Yes, this has always been my impression of her as well.

    The irony is that she knows, quite well, that in a profession like hers, appearance is paramount, and her advancement has had as much to do with her physical genetics than it has had to do with anything else. The position doesn’t require a great brain to succeed — it requires a great physique and face, and she has that, thanks to her genes (and presumably she works out and so on so as to maximize her advantage). it’s all hypocrisy at the end of the day, because someone like Kelly has made storehouses of cash based on “objectification”, because this is how the world works — she has milked that for her career, and then turns around and bitches about sexism, when it is the “objectification” of women that has led to her outrageous paydays. If she really cared about that, she wouldn’t have the job she does, which is based precisely on what she is complaining about. Nothing stopping a beautiful woman like her becoming a school teacher, is there?

  187. JDG says:

    Cane Caldo your insight amazes me yet again.

  188. Boxer

    It’s possible that some future movement could excuse away abortion by likening it to “an inconvenience like child support”. I guess I find that a less pressing point than the need to start talking frankly to those on the fence.

    Not a future movement…..rather a present rejoinder heard frequently from the frothing mouths of left crazies. I mentioned it already, the response to a challenge about abortion is commonly that the challenger cannot be serious because of their inconsistency, that they do not support endless give away programs by government to support these aborted children should they be given the right to life. This is considered serious rebuttal and of equal weight to killing the unborn. In the same way so are the words used in TFH’s post, and I suspect with an undercurrent of purpose shared by many who read them.

    Talking frankly to those on the fence? On the fence about what? About which? Abortion of forced labor of men? Clearly it cannot be gleaned that the Republicans who wrongly see no issue with male forced ;labor are therefore on the fence about abortion. So what is it you mean by it being important for those on the fence to be spoken to frankly? And what is the other thing in the hinted mutually exclusive? They must be spoken to frankly rather than ……what? Whats the thing that would be chosen in lieu of them being spoken to frankly? Them being spoken to UNfrankly?

    I’m genuinely not following

  189. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Empath, you’re not being very empathetic lately. Anyway…

    Talking frankly to those on the fence? On the fence about what? About which?

    I was on the fence for a long time. Part of it was solipsism. Since I was careful with my junk, I figured that the only people who got abortions were young female rape-victims, or women who learned that they would eventually give birth to a child so sickly that it was going to die anyway. I honestly had no idea that so many wimminz were icing their kids simply because it would make their planned summer as a weekend volleyball player difficult or inconvenient.

    I suppose I could thank the people who hold up those grisly signs, and the people who (bravely) make undercover videos, and the people who calmly and patiently explain the facts.

    Cane, thanks for an interesting riposte…

    In this case: You see both the worship of Christ and the (now defunct) worship of Moloch as sociological phenomenon. We don’t. We know there are spirits, and we know that the spirit(s) who animated Moloch worshippers in the past, and that they still exist and move.

    I actually can’t compare the garden variety Moloch worshipper to the Christian and Jewish wimminz who get abortions. Many of the former had been raised to think that sacrificing their kids was the way to eternal life. It was the ideology they swam in. Moreover, I imagine that many of them cried tears and were sad to kill their babies. The Christian and Jewish wimminz in North America, as Dalrock’s linked article shows, feel happy and relieved to have killed their kids.

    Modern Christians are probably much worse than Moloch pagans of old. Of course, the old Hebrew texts give us some guidance as to how a healthy society would deal with Modern Christians and Jews who practice or promote convenience abortions.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A2-5&version=KJV

    Not gonna comment, as I’m sure the feminist squad would twist anything I wrote to try and complain about our host.

    Best,

    Boxer

  190. Crank says:

    Unrelated to this topic, I thought Dalrock might get a kick out of this. Apparently, the social sciences have come up with new euphamism to make mothers who deprive their children of fathers sound heroic – “maternal gatekeeping”.

    https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/how-moms-judge-dads-parenting-skills-126070520962.html

  191. feeriker says:

    Unrelated to this topic, I thought Dalrock might get a kick out of this. Apparently, the social sciences have come up with new euphamism to make mothers who deprive their children of fathers sound heroic – “maternal gatekeeping”.

    We all knew that this was coming.

    On my way to church yesterday I was listening to a popular FM Contemporary Christian music radio station. In between song strings the hostess breathlessly announced that she just had to share a phone call she received on air that she claimed just made her week. It was from a young girl, about 10 or 11 years old, giddily announcing that she was being adopted out of foster care, that she finally had a family. Her adoptive mother then got on the phone and announced how overjoyed she was to be able to adopt this girl.

    Not a word mentioned about a husband or a dad, and no indication on air that any man was involved in any aspect of either of these two females’ lives.

    Again, this was on a Christian radio station.

  192. Crank says:

    errr, “euphemism”, not “euphamism”. Grrr.

  193. Spacetraveller says:

    Crank,

    LOL…Maternal Gatekeeping.
    I found this bit interesting…”religious Moms tend to open the gate…”
    For the loife of me, I just cannot fathom why this might be…!

    From the same set of articles is this beauty to be found…”13 reasons to be jealous of Single Moms”…
    I kid you not…
    We are supposed to be JEALOUS of single Moms?
    Quoi???

    http://news.yahoo.com/13-reasons-to-be-jealous-of-single-moms-125526222958.html;_ylt=AwrBTz7q3chVM98ASydXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyMWRpcWo2BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjAzNDFfMQRzZWMDc3I-

    These women have the whole sexual gatekeeping thing under control…so naturally, it is time to seek out higher gatekeeping challenges, like….Maternal gatekeeping.
    In other words, let’s kick out Daddy and the world will be right again.
    Am I right or am I right, people?
    🙂
    Interesting…this ideology…

  194. Eidolon says:

    A claim was made in a tribute to a third-trimester abortionist in the L.A. Times here and I’m curious if you guys can confirm;

    “It is long past time to reclaim abortion as a social good, long past time pretending that it is a horrible tragedy for everyone who has one. One in three American women will have had an induced abortion in her lifetime. Women experience many emotions around the decision, but for most, it is a relief.”

    Is it really true that one in three American women will have an abortion in her lifetime? Is this a statistically stupid claim based on the total number of abortions, which factors in a lot of women who have several abortions and spreads that out to multiple women? Is this claim even in the ballpark of reality?

    If this is remotely true, then “Yes All Women” indeed.

  195. Eidolon says:

    Also, if that number is correct, and the other is correct, then 31.35% of all menopausal women you see on the street are happy that they killed one or more of their children. That’s pretty horrifying when you think about it.

  196. Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar and commented:
    Agree. Play the unwomanly card.

  197. Boxer says:

    Dear Eidolon:

    In 2011, there were 219 abortions per 1000 live births! That’s an astonishing statistic. believe that the stats are

    Also, if that number is correct, and the other is correct, then 31.35% of all menopausal women you see on the street are happy that they killed one or more of their children. That’s pretty horrifying when you think about it.

    Not only do they feel happy, but both church and state will back up their choice, even throwing parties to celebrate the stupidity and irresponsibility of these pathetic wimminz…

    An Epicopal church in Wichita, Kansas will host “Chili For Choice” on January 22, 2015, while Orlando, Florida will rock out with “Rock n’ Roe 2015” with local bands and speakers.

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/abortion-celebrations-scheduled-around-country-planned-parenthood

    Is that disgusting, or what?

    Boxer

  198. Heidi says:

    @Eidolon

    I think the one-in-three statistic is dodgy. It’s based on a 2011 estimate that 3 in 10 women will have an abortion (Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:1358-66). The data used are rather old, a great deal of statistical sleight-of-hand is used to come up with the “lifetime incidence” rate, and the study is authored by members of the Guttmacher Institute, which is very closely involved with Planned Parenthood.

    I don’t know how many women will butcher their unborn children in their lifetime. My feeling is that the percentage is far lower than 30%, but I could be indulging in wishful thinking.

  199. Dave says:

    Is it really true that one in three American women will have an abortion in her lifetime?

    No it is not. For feminists, their default claims are never based on truth. Not even once. Whether it is about rape culture, equality, gender pay gap, domestic violence, abortion participation rate, or anything else, ALL of the claims by feminists are lies. There is absolutely no truth to them.
    Once we remember this fact, we’ll have a better result with feminists.

  200. Psalm1Wife says:

    Pardon my intrusion.

    Eidolon,
    The statistic purporting that 1/3 women will have an induced abortion in their life time is factoring in the removal of all deceased fetuses through the birth canal whatsoever, i.e. a miscarriage where pitocin or surgical removal is necessary.

    My sister has had several unfortunate “abortions” according to paperwork because of this technical peculiarity.

  201. greyghost says:

    Thanks Psalm1Wife I thought there was no hope of finding that elusive unicorn stink hole with statistics like that. The blind faith in the purity of women has been restored

  202. Isa says:

    @Boxer
    Not Arab Christian although I do run in Arab circles frequently. It’s a nickname.

    I do think it’s a lot of shifting blame and pearl clutching actually. Grappling with the fact that there are women who think they are Christians, think they are well meaning, and think that they are making the right choice to kill their child… is not easy. Blah blah blah solipsism blah blah blah feminists blah blah blah not Real ChristiansTM.

    The question at the end of the day, how to get people to wake up and stop the normalization of grave sins without entirely pushing them away? It’s not an easy ask.

  203. Eidolon says:

    @Psalm1Wife

    Ah, so they lump together the happy murderesses with the grieving mothers who did all they could but lost their precious children anyway. I guess that’s par for the course with people who see no difference between living humans and trash.

  204. GeminiXcX says:

    @Boxer

    You have been reasoned with to such an extent, I don’t know what answer you’re actually looking for.

    I’m going to try a different approach:
    Say I go out right now, and rape a woman. And in my defense, I claim that I did it in the name of “The manosphere, and our fight against misandry”. And say a whole bunch of misogynists back me up.

    1) Would myself and these men be truthful in claiming that the Manosphere incites/accepts such things?

    2) What if detractors started accusing you and places like “Dalrock/theprivateman/RoK” of being hate groups, because evil men attached their actions to a group you belong to?

    3) Is the real manosphere itself now subsequently evil?
    4) Wouldn’t you readily defend it by saying ‘those men do not represent our ideals.’

    In closing, look at 2 Timothy 3:1-5, and then reread verse 5 again. Even the scriptures prophesied the future apostacy of The Church. Jesus makes it clear that false Christians who misrepresent him will be annihilated, en masse, on judgment day. “Christianity’s” corruption is so widespread now, divine obliteration is all that would stop it.

    If you still wish to use the phrase “Christian Matriarchy”, and hold on to your positions above, that is your error to make in this regard.

    Still appreciate your input on many topics; you’re an extremely insightful contributor. . . for the most part. (Smiles to myself).

    See you in the forums.

    -GXcX

  205. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer

    You’re still avoiding my questions. Just in case you forgot what they are….

    Do those “Christian and Jewish wimminz who are murdering their own children” produce the works of the flesh, or the fruit of the Spirit? Please answer the question directly.

    Does American culture produce the works of the flesh, or the fruit of the Spirit in greater abundance? Please answer the question directly.

  206. Dale says:

    Boxer mentioned Leviticus 20:2-5. I remembered the first part of that, but had forgotten that God also gave a warning/curse for the “good” people who refuse to act in the face of this evil.
    Hmmm…. Abortion. Germany and their killing of Jews. Russia and their killing of various social classes, dissenters, and people in neighbouring countries. So-called “Palestinians” launching rockets into Jewish cities. How about “family” court judges who routinely order a man’s children be kidnapped from him, regardless of his wife’s actions that may have caused the marital breakdown?

    A similar verse is “Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil”. Rom 14:16

  207. Gunner Q says:

    No, Dale. There’s no NT command for vigilantism. Punishing evil is, per Romans, the responsibility of gov’t not people. If you want to fight our tyrannical gov’t then support the Constitution Party. There’s a big election coming up and the good guys can’t vote themselves in.

    Notice pre-Kings Israel didn’t have luxuries like formal law enforcement or a legal system. This is why Mosaic Law contained vigilante clauses, draconian punishments and a very low burden of proof. The NT covenant allows for secular gov’t as a third party in society alongside Church and People, symbolized by Christ accepting the Roman occupation of Israel.

  208. Dale says:

    @Gunner Q

    No, but maybe yes… I am interested in your feedback for the “maybe yes”. Sorry for being long-winded; wanted to ensure you understand my questions.

    1) First “no”. God’s nature does not change. Mal 3:6-11, Heb 13:8.
    Thus if God thought some crime so unacceptable that any person doing it must be removed from society, then God still thinks this. One example to show that the death penalty was meant to remove the evil from society, rather than some vindictive revenge, is Deut 19:15-21 (specifically verse 19). But any passage on the death penalty, including Lev 20 mentioned by Boxer, fails to show revenge as the reason God commands it be done. These penalties help us. Perhaps “punishment” is the wrong word; I think “corrective action” would be closer to a correct interpretation.
    I agree governments have authority, per Romans 13:1-7. This authority comes from God however, and when they disobey God’s commands themselves, these evil laws have no validity. Consider two seemingly opposing commands:
    a) Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Thus disagreeing with Caesar’s contention that he was God. Or the angel directly acting against the ruling authority’s decision to jail Peter, by freeing Peter.
    b) Jesus said we are to obey these sinful men; Matt 23 and Rom 13 mentioned above.

    I that this apparent contradiction plays out as follows:
    – I obey the authorities, except where they order me to disobey God’s command, or try to prevent me from obeying God’s command (e.g. Daniel 6: Daniel praying when ordered by the authority not to do so). This is similar to a Sargent trying to overrule the General; doesn’t work. You obey the General, and ignore the fuming Sargent.
    – I pay taxes, even when the government plans to use the money for evil. The need to pay is from Rom 13:7. I doubt the government of the day was good in all they did (e.g. crucifixion of Jesus, as a known innocent man), yet the Holy Spirit still inspired Paul to write “If you owe taxes, pay taxes”. My weasel point here would be that I am only obeying the governments command to pay taxes; I am not myself working to kill children or destroy families.
    – If God orders something done, then I should not be cowardly, but rather do it, despite the authority’s command to the contrary and any possible consequences. E.g. Daniel 6 mentioned above.
    Thus if God commands something, I am to obey him, despite the inferior authorities on earth trying to overrule God. Boxer’s passage in Lev 20 re God condemning the non-acting bystanders seems to fit well here.
    One man’s “vigilante” is another man’s “obedient servant of God”.

    2) And “maybe yes”. Normally, I have no respect for the position when someone claims that God “changed” since the OT, or became more “enlightened” or something. They go on to treat the OT as obsolete and say if it is not found in the NT, it does not count. (E.g. “There’s no NT command for vigilantism.”) Some even throw out 95% of the gospels, as Jesus’ preaching is before his once-for-all sacrifice, and thus before the new covenant started.

    You are not doing this however:
    >Notice pre-Kings Israel didn’t have luxuries like formal law enforcement or a legal system.

    This is an interesting suggestion. If God only gave the death penalty for crimes, due to the lack of better alternatives, this could suggest that these better alternatives should be used instead, where available. E.g. “Since we have no jail, fine, go ahead and kill the murderer; better that than letting him continue to roam the countryside, killing as he sees fit. But once you have jails and professional physiologists, use those instead.”

    Two questions for you however:
    a) Can you give a passage that has a suggestion such as the “once you have jails” above in it? I am only aware of God commanding corrective actions, such as “pay back the stolen amount and add one fifth” or “the people of the community are to stone him to death”. They are simply commands; “do this”. It does not say, “do this for now, until this better thing comes along because it will be better”.
    Nowhere do I know of a passage with something I could point to and say, this condition that God said no longer applies, so I can ignore the command. I am aware HUMANS can come up with all sorts of excuses to ignore God; I have examples from myself for that unfortunately.
    I want something similar to Jer 29, which shows a promise from God for a limited time frame and to people in a limited place (70 years in Babylon). Those restrictions are not my human excuses; they are in the text itself.
    Or, “until you are permanently in the land I will give you, do , just while in the desert”.
    Can you think of a corrective action passage that contains within the text itself a hint that the corrective action would no longer be God’s command, once a certain amount of time passed, or a certain type of government came to exist?

    b) Why do you (appear to) think that government replaces God’s commands for justice?
    “Punishing evil is, per Romans, the responsibility of gov’t not people.” No; Rom 13:1-7 shows the governing authority will “bring punishment on the wrong doer”. We can say this is being added; I see nothing about any other commands from God being rescinded.
    Matt 5:21-48 repeatedly shows that the OT commands continue, but that Jesus adds to them by calling us to a higher standard. I.e., obey the command to not commit adultery, but ALSO refrain from allowing thoughts of adultery (lusting); obey the command to not murder, but ALSO refrain from continuing in anger toward others (instead go be reconciled or settle matters).
    My thought is that government cannot remove God’s commands. They can however add new commands. E.g., we have speed limits on the roads for the sake of safety. It was unnecessary for God to give commands for traffic safety before vehicles capable of traveling faster than a horse were invented. But the government of today sees the need, and addresses it with additional commands.
    So, I admit government can add laws. Can you show they can remove God’s justice commands?

    I shall await your wisdom…🙂 Answers referencing and based on the text of the Scriptures will have vastly more weight.

  209. Micha Elyi says:

    Anyone can claim to be a Christian, yet belie that claim with their actions. One can say “I believe!”, and such, but if what they do is unbiblical. . .
    GeminiXcX

    (1) You are implicitly claiming that Christ did not come to save sinners but came only for those who have already saved themselves. Maybe you could re-think or clarify your claim.

    (2) As for your talk about what’s “unbiblical”, you forget that Jesus did not leave us a book but a Church. Any authority the Bible has comes from the very Church that Jesus founded and Protestants deny. Also, the Bible’s Christian and Hebrew Scriptures were never a soup-to-nuts cookbook for making a church nor a complete guide for a Christian life. By treating the Bible so, you risk putting a book ahead of Christ. Book-worship is a kind of paganism, you know.

  210. JDG says:

    you forget that Jesus did not leave us a book but a Church.

    Jesus also left us His words and His teachings, which where written down by His disciples and put into a book.

    Any authority the Bible has comes from the very Church that Jesus founded

    No, the authority in the Bible comes from the fact that it is the Word of God:

    “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” – 2Tim 3:16.

  211. JDG says:

    Also, the Church that Jesus founded is NOT the church that protestants deny.

  212. JDG says:

    Also, the Bible’s Christian and Hebrew Scriptures were never a soup-to-nuts cookbook for making a church nor a complete guide for a Christian life.

    Really? What are you basing this on. Who said this that we should believe it?

    By treating the Bible so, you risk putting a book ahead of Christ. Book-worship is a kind of paganism, you know.

    How can you logically equate obeying the instructions God gave us to worshiping the instrument God used to give us those instructions?

  213. JDG says:

    It is you who take the words of men (Popes – who teach the doctrines of men) over the Word of God that are at risk.

  214. Gunner Q says:

    @Dale,
    “Normally, I have no respect for the position when someone claims that God “changed” since the OT, or became more “enlightened” or something. They go on to treat the OT as obsolete and say if it is not found in the NT, it does not count.”

    Legally, the OT really is obsolete. It remains valid for study but its laws are not binding. We are neither Jewish nor living in ancient Israel.

    “I want something similar to Jer 29, which shows a promise from God for a limited time frame and to people in a limited place (70 years in Babylon). Those restrictions are not my human excuses; they are in the text itself.”

    Acts 15:5-11 for the obsolescence of Mosaic Law. Your own quotation of Matt. 5 for its irrelevance. As for jails, my point was to illustrate why God might do things one way then and another way now.

    “Why do you (appear to) think that government replaces God’s commands for justice?”

    I think that God gave human gov’t the job of punishing evil in Romans 13. The big change post-Christ was the massive influx of Gentiles into the faith. Were these people required to submit to Jewish government and rules (like circumcision) per the Mosaic Law? Paul and Peter were most vocal that they weren’t. So, these non-Jews came to the faith yet lived under a non-faith gov’t… and both Christ and the Apostles set an example of accepting Godless Roman rule. This situation, Church and State becoming separate entities, cannot coexist with Mosaic Law.

    What role, then, should a secular gov’t have in Christian society? Romans 13 grants gov’t authority over crime and punishment. This works because having churches enforce crime and punishment creates a de facto theocracy, like Islam, and that is not the example Christ & Apostles set for us. (For all Christ’s hatred of the Pharisees and Sadducees, he never once laid a finger on them. That’s our example to follow.)

    What if the gov’t becomes destructive of Christian morality? We have Paul’s precedent before the Sanhedrin for the conscience clause and lots of precedent for calling out evildoers… but no Biblical precedent for using violence. Peter and the clipped ear is a counter-precedent.

    Hence our modern frustration. The gov’t’s job is punishing evil but instead they’re rewarding it, and there’s little we Christians are allowed do except leave or endure. Revelation 2:18-25 for an analogous situation.

  215. Looking Glass says:

    @Gunner Q:

    One very major complicating factor, though, is that (at least for Americans), the authority of the government derives from the governed. Which means that, yes, God is going to judge you for your voting record. And how you respond to your government when it attempts to steal your authority, which has been granted by God.

    This is one area, very notably, that Christians really don’t want to get into the weeds, as it’s a lot easier to think “we’re under Roman!” than to deal with the massive amount of power granted to the individual. And with Power & Authority, which is granted by God, the individual is responsible.

    That has a lot of implications throughout the life of a modern Christian. And it’s the reason frivorce will cost a Woman her soul. Power has temporal and eternal consequences. Which is why the rejection of Wisdom has been so destructive upon Christianity.

  216. Gunner Q says:

    “One very major complicating factor, though, is that (at least for Americans), the authority of the government derives from the governed.”

    Right, which is why I was careful to say “Biblical precedent”. Local customs and culture are a different matter. For us Americans, the fact that our gov’t is not obeying the restrictions on its power gives us the right and duty to replace it. But this is an American thing, not a Christian thing.

  217. Looking Glass says:

    @Gunner Q:

    I quite agree, the problem is that it’s utterly common to reject the latter bit because of over-reading the former. Which is really all about modern Christianity’s rejection of responsibility. Though not that wasn’t a constant topic of the Epistles. Funny, that. There really is nothing new under the Sun.

  218. Dale says:

    Gunner Q

    >Legally, the OT really is obsolete.

    If you mean for salvation, true. But it was never “legal” for that purpose. Even in the OT times, God made clear that the religious ritual acts were not what he desired. Hosea 6:4-6 and Amos 5:21-24 are two sample passages. The OT laws contained laws for ceremonial/ritual purity — they did not in fact grant salvation. Which we already know.
    God also gave laws for behaviour however. E.g., God said he hates divorce. I see no reason to think God has changed his attitude toward that. Or adultery. Or stealing, or any of the other criminal/social laws.

    I inquired about why we should think the proper corrective actions have changed. You referred to Acts 15 for part of your answer. Acts 15 discusses salvation; the Pharisees apparently had the incorrect view that being obedient to the law would give salvation. Verse 1 in that same chapter says, ‘Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”’ Verse 24 reaffirms this focus as the instructions are given.
    This false teaching on salvation requirements is the context in which the Pharisees said there must be obedience to circumscion. This is the context in which the church elders said to only demand the belivers avoid 4 things. But while only these 4 were given in response to false salvation teaching, I doubt that it was now open season for adultery and murder. That would conflict with other NT teaching. I think many people get messed up by assuming that God re-affirming in the NT that we are saved through God’s efforts, not our own good works or flawless obedience to the OT law, also necessarily throws out God’s laws for how to interact with God and other people. I think it is instead true that we are saved by faith, and also that God has expections for how I think/act/live — these are expressed to us by God through both OT and NT commands.

    I am surprised you think Matt 5 argues for the irrelevant of the OT. Jesus says the exact opposite in 17-20. Part of that says the law will not disappear until heaven and earth disappear… and we are still here on Earth, so… As already noted, the parts in Matt 5 I referred to show that Jesus adds to the OT, rather than removing or replacing it. See verses 21-26, 31-32, 33-37 and 38-42 for examples. Or chapter 6.

    Your point about Christ and the apostles submitting to the authorities is of course valid, and agrees with Rom 13. I am unable to see this as replacing God’s civil laws, but rather adding. But I have to agree that God gave authority to human governments; Rom 13:1. That is clear. I also see your concerns with being under a theocracy, although that is originally what God wanted them to have. Even having a king was, I think, clearly considered by God to be less good than what came before.

    Regardless, interesting thoughts. I think I am far from alone on feeling the same frustration you mentioned about the government rewarding evil instead of punishing it as they should.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

  219. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/us/ohio-mother-confesses-murder-three-sons/index.html

    Frightening is it not, that if she had aborted all three of them in the 35th week of gestation instead of killing them 3 months after birth, no only would it not have been a crime, it wouldn’t have even been newsworthy. The United States is the devil’s playground. He truly celebrates every single selfish act that feminism has wrought on God’s green earth.

  220. Mickey Singh says:

    Abortion as a political, feminist and/or religious issue is a novel thing for me and unique to the anglosphere perhaps? I hail from a region where women are pressured, even coerced, by their in-laws into having abortions if the fetus is female.

  221. OKRickety says:

    @Mickey Singh,

    I learned something. I knew abortion of girls was common in China, but did not know that it was also often done in India and surrounding countries.

    Based on my Christian beliefs and USA upbringing, I think sex-selective abortion of girls should be a feminist, religious, and, consequently, political issue. Obviously, it is not a big issue in some countries.

  222. Oscar says:

    Matt Walsh gets some stuff very wrong (as do we all), but he also gets some things very, very right. For example, in this article he compares Planned Parenthood to pedophile pediatrician Dr. Earl Bradley.

    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/planned-parenthood-murders-children-none-of-their-other-services-matter/

    “I lived in Delaware in 2010, a few miles from the pediatric offices of Dr. Earl Bradley. I’d never heard of him until the news started reporting that he’d been indicted on felony charges. His crime: raping more than a hundred of his patients. His youngest victims were no more than 3 or 4 months old. He was the worst serial pedophile in American history.

    Bradley was convicted on all counts and sentenced to a century in solitary confinement. His practice had to pay out $100 million to his victims. His offices were shut down and demolished. Members of the community came and watched as the bulldozers trampled it into dust.

    ….

    Now, do you know why nobody tried to rationalize for Bradley? Do you know why nobody talked about the “other stuff” he did? Do you know why nobody attempted to tabulate what percentage of his business was rape and what percentage was valuable medical care? Do you know why nobody worried that shutting down the rapist’s clinic might impede people’s access to medical services? Do you know why none of us locals ever argued that he should be prohibited from sexually brutalizing his patients but allowed to continue practicing medicine for the sake of public health? Because that would have been insane.”

    Walsh is wrong on that one point. It would not be insane, it would be evil. Still, I recommend reading the whole thing.

  223. Sucks to be a woman-hating man, doesn’t it? The hate against women is pretty vile here. Clue to you clueless men: We women are not your sex toys, not your incubators, and not your servants. And yes, the great majority of women who have abortions feel relieved after they have them. After all, they are stuck with the vast majority of the child care if they have kids, while their impregnators can do whatever the hell they want. Thanks to widespread workplace discrimination, women find it very difficult to support themselves, with or without kids, because of the male-dominated economic system that says women are dependents and men are providers. So women need access to contraception and abortion. Oh, another thing: women, including their body parts, are not things for you to own. You sexist men will never win.

  224. Linx says:

    @ Susan
    “Sucks to be a woman-hating man, doesn’t it?”
    Sucks to be a man-hating woman, doesn’t it.

    “The hate against women is pretty vile here.”
    You wish. However I am sure that you would hate men even more if they were indifferent to what women do.

    “Clue to you clueless men: We women are not your sex toys, not your incubators, and not your servants.”
    So since when do you speak for all women? Now why don’t you go finish reading 50 Shades.

    “And yes, the great majority of women who have abortions feel relieved after they have them.”
    Spoken like a true mass murdering psychopath.

    “After all, they are stuck with the vast majority of the child care if they have kids, while their impregnators can do whatever the hell they want.”
    Yeah as can see by the multitude of cats around you.

    “Thanks to widespread workplace discrimination, women find it very difficult to support themselves, with or without kids, because of the male-dominated economic system that says women are dependents and men are providers.”
    So are you then volunteering to go down into the coal mines?

    “So women need access to contraception and abortion.”
    No they want access to it and for men to pay for it.

    “Oh, another thing: women, including their body parts, are not things for you to own. You sexist men will never win.”
    Seems that you’ve lost out on love my dear.

  225. feeriker says:

    We women are not your sex toys, not your incubators, and not your servants.

    No worries, dearie. I highly doubt that any “man” worthy of the adjective has any desire to occupy even so much as the same galaxy with a charmer such as yourself, let alone make you recoil in revusion at the thought of even inadvertant physical contact. You’re completely safe, that I will guarantee you calm down, and go empty the litter box. I can smell the ammonia all the way from here.

    Thanks to widespread workplace discrimination, women find it very difficult to support themselves, with or without kids, because of the male-dominated economic system that says women are dependents and men are providers.

    Is that how things work on your planet? Tragic, I’ll admit. Here on Earth it’s just the opposite of what you describe. Due to systemic and legally-sanctioned discrimination in favor of women, most of whom are wholly unqualified, or just barely so, for the jobs offered them, it is educated, experienced, skilled men who find it increasingly difficult to find gainful employment.

    You should try moving here to Earth. All you’ll have to do is demand a job –pretty much ANY job you want, even one that you’re not even remotely qualified for, and odds are you’ll get it. Your chances of getting it increase exponentially if you can prove that you’re “disabled” (jackpot if it’s a “disability” that would wholly disqualify any man from the same job), or have a rare skin color, or some other extraneous anomoly. Your unhinged mental state probably will not only guarantee you your dream job here on Earth, Susie, but probably an executive position, if for no other reason than for your employers to try to inoculate themselves against the inevitable grievance-based lawsuit. It would be a win for you all around.

    Seriously, Susie, life on whatever planet you live on must really suck for women. My brethren here in the Earthen androsphere will justifiably be upset with me for saying this, but you really should consider moving here to Earth if you’re that miserable on your own planet. Believe me, it is pure paradise here for women like you. It must be, because so many of you live here.

  226. Jim says:

    We women are not your sex toys, not your incubators, and not your servants.

    What man in his right mind would want a little cunt like you? Enjoy your cats.

  227. Anon says:

    Other than the boilerplate shaming language that might as well be from some 2005-era spambot, this sentence from Slutty Susie stood out :

    Thanks to widespread workplace discrimination, women find it very difficult to support themselves, with or without kids, because of the male-dominated economic system that says women are dependents and men are providers.

    LOL!! The entire economy is built around the principle of transferring all resources away from men and towards women. That Slutty Susie thinks that the economic system is oppressing women and obstructing their economic potential is perhaps the most delusional thing I have ever read.

  228. Jim says:

    LOL!! The entire economy is built around the principle of transferring all resources away from men and towards women. That Slutty Susie thinks that the economic system is oppressing women and obstructing their economic potential is perhaps the most delusional thing I have ever read.

    Yeah that was actually entertaining. Some of these cunts say such incredible nonsense that I sometimes wonder if it’s just teenagers trolling. Some of it seems just too stupid to be real.

  229. Heidi says:

    I’m surprised Dalrock let S’s comment through. I’m not at all surprised at her support of Clinton.

    Susan, be grateful that, currently, only certain stages of human development are considered fair game for butchery. We may yet grow old in a culture that has us euthanized when we’re no longer useful, for this is what a culture of death leads to.

  230. feeriker says:

    That Slutty Susie thinks that the economic system is oppressing women and obstructing their economic potential is perhaps the most delusional thing I have ever read.

    Hence my observation upthread that Susie can’t possibly be a resident of this planet.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s