It isn’t insincerity, but fear of losing women’s approval.

Agnostic writes in The Pro-Life Movement (TM): Just another branch of victimhood feminism:

Certainly if you believe that abortion is murder, then the pregnant woman is at least an accessory to murder. Perhaps you wouldn’t punish the woman as much as the doctor, but to not only let her off scot-free, to righteously command everyone to look the other way about what she did, is sacrilege.

But it’s The Current Year, and shaming people hurts their self-esteem and makes them feel excluded, so everyone who does something wrong is actually a victim of circumstances and only needs our compassion, not our attempt to guide their behavior in a better direction.

Christians are not even allowed to appeal to Jesus’ command to “Go and sin no more” — sinners aren’t really sinners, but victims of someone else’s plots. We’re supposed to feel sorry for the pure innocent victims, and try to foil the plots of the truly wicked. That is actually a far more primitive worldview, akin to one where all bad things are due to witchcraft, rather than our own inner sinful nature.

…its central claim, that “abortion is murder,” was flatly contradicted by their total pardon of the pregnant women who seek out abortion.

This assessment is hard to argue with, but Agnostic has the motivation wrong.  It isn’t that the leaders of the pro life movement don’t sincerely believe that abortion is murder.  This is I should note the obvious conclusion nearly everyone will draw when seeing the pro life outrage to the proposal that women be punished in some way for obtaining illegal abortions.  It was in fact my own (initial) gut reaction to the outrage.

The correct explanation however is even uglier and harder to fathom.  It isn’t that the pro life movement doesn’t believe that abortion is murder;  it is that even when it comes to Christian women murdering their own unborn children the fear of calling out sin in women is simply too much to bear.  As outrageous as this would seem, it fits with a well established pattern.  Faced with the problem of women coveting men’s role as warriors, conservative Christians created a fantasy world where women have been forced to join the military because men refuse to fight (see here and here).  This same fear drives a long list of similar contortions, from cartoonish chivalry and inventing the feminist sin of servility, to claiming women’s sins are actually virtues.  A wife denying sex contrary to 1 Cor 7 is therefore presented as channeling God’s will through her vagina, and an unhinged wife is said to be submittting to her husband by throwing a “godly tantrum”.

This fear is pervasive, but it is shrouded in denial backed up by a common misconception that conservative Christians are fervent antifeminists.  No one thinks to check to see if conventional wisdom is true because Christian conservatives as woman hating meanies is too good to check.  It is somewhat similar to the way everyone knows Malthus was predicting capitalism would lead to famine, even though he was actually writing about the dangers of the welfare state and the dreams of various leftist utopians.  Neither the left nor the right want to confront, let alone process the fact that Malthus was not a Malthusian.  This would require changing the way the pejorative Malthusian is applied, and neither side wants to go back and rework all of their arguments.  So the misconception endures.  Likewise, confronting the fact that conservative Christians are pandering to feminist Christian women would require a rework of the entire debate, and neither side has any motive to undertake such a massive task.

Yet the evidence of conservative Christian terror of upsetting women is all around us.  Matt Walsh laughed off the claim that he was carrying feminist water when he argued that women who have abortions are only victims:

walshnotfeminist

As nonchalant as Walsh pretends to be he knows very well that the women in his audience are in reality extremely feminist, and he fears them punishing him by withholding their approval:

…what disturbed me more than the inevitable Attack of the Trolls, were the literally hundreds of people who told me they agreed with the message, and thought it constructive and urgently necessary, yet I “lost them,” or they “stopped reading,” or they “changed their minds about me,” because of one three word sentence halfway through my rather lengthy post. Here is that decisive phrase: “I’m no feminist.” There goes the whole heartfelt and sincere piece about loving, protecting, and being loyal to women; apparently negated in the minds of many because I didn’t give myself the proper label.

As absurd as it seems, the leaders of the pro life movement really do believe that abortion is murder.  They are just too afraid of being scolded by the women in their lives (and audience) to act as if they believe it is murder when a mother kills her own unborn child.

This entry was posted in Abortion, Denial, Matt Walsh, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to It isn’t insincerity, but fear of losing women’s approval.

  1. Linx says:

    Proverbs 24:11-12
    11 Rescue those being led away to death;
    hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
    12 If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,”
    does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
    Does not he who guards your life know it?
    Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

  2. Looking Glass says:

    Romans 1:16 (ESV), “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”

    At their deepest core, they are ashamed of the Gospel. They believe it, but it brings them shame if they say it truthfully. The desire to be Liked outweighs all other regards.

  3. Zippy says:

    An important series of posts.

    Donald Trump was just exhibiting his inexperience at being ‘pro life’. Being ‘pro life’ means that you don’t want abortion to ‘happen’ (as if it were a spate of bad weather); but you also don’t want the women who choose abortion to be held accountable for murdering their children.

    Bonald’s take is better: I am not pro-life, I am anti abortion: https://bonald.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/im-not-pro-life-im-anti-abortion/

  4. Pingback: It isn’t insincerity, but fear of losing women’s approval. – Manosphere.com

  5. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    The correct explanation however is even uglier and harder to fathom. It isn’t that the pro life movement doesn’t believe that abortion is murder; it is that even when it comes to Christian women murdering their own unborn children the fear of calling out sin in women is simply too much to bear.

    […]

    As absurd as it seems, the leaders of the pro life movement really do believe that abortion is murder. They are just too afraid of being scolded by the women in their lives (and audience) to act as if they believe it is murder when a mother kills her own unborn child.

    I don’t disagree that fear exists, but it seems to me that the bigger reason is a genuine (and foolish) disbelief in female intention to sin.

    They believe women sin, and they believe abortion is murder, but since they believe women can’t really intend to sin, then in the cultural Christian mind she’s not culpable for it. It is to this lack of intention that Doug Wilson appealed. “If only she knew”, (I’m summarizing) “like an abortion doctor knew, then a woman wouldn’t have an abortion.” But she obviously does know. That’s how she ended up pregnant in an abortion clinic instead of pregnant in a dentist’s office. She knew where to go to get what she wanted.

    One wonders how Doug Wilson actually knows that abortion is murder. If one has to know abortion is murder as an abortionist knows it: Then Doug Wilson doesn’t actually know abortion is murder. He doesn’t know like an abortionist does; so who is he to pronounce upon it? if only doctors can really know of human life and therefore the taking of it, then what wonders he must have experienced at the obstetrician’s office.

    “Doc, I can’t stand the anticipation! Tell me: Is my wife going to have an octopus this time? Is it a llama?”

    “Congratulations, Mr. Wilson, you’re going to have another baby.”

    “That’s incredible: Another human! What are the odds?

    Of course the disbelief in a woman’s intent to sin is a result of pedestalization; what I have begun to refer to as “Mommy Goggles”. The fear is a stick, but maintaining Mommy Goggles is the carrot.

  6. greyghost says:

    Maybe the feminist have it right. Weak men are screwing things up. Its the Adam and Eve thing played out over and over again and again. One “F”: you bitch and most social problems go away.

    BTW that stuff the churchians are pulling is the very reason we have a total lack of respect for Christians and the continued writing of laws and policy that completely disregard “religious beliefs” yet at the same time bend over for Islam (much respect)

  7. innocentbystanderboston says:

    They are just too afraid of being scolded by the women in their lives (and audience) to act as if they believe it is murder when a mother kills her own unborn child.

    Correct.

  8. Llama. Good one Cane. You just advanced the pro-life cause. There will now be a Llama exception to late term abortion laws that exist because while they don’t mind jettisoning that bundle of cells festering in there, a llama….but llamas are cute, we cannot hurt a llama.

    An octopus however could shut the abortion industry down. If advocates for marine life can kick Shamu out of his collective tanks they can force the tanks that are carrying an octopus to keep it there until it can be viable in the wold. (I did not just refer to a woman as a tank…I shoulda said aquarium because only boys are names Sherman and girls are angel fish)

    Dalrock I’d add the fear of losing lifts to the fear of adding scolds.

  9. in the wild…..not in the wold

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    As absurd as it seems, the leaders of the pro life movement really do believe that abortion is murder. They are just too afraid of being scolded by the women in their lives (and audience) to act as if they believe it is murder when a mother kills her own unborn child.

    Ok, so leaders of the pro life movement really do believe that abortion is murder, they just can’t seem to match actions to their words. Huh. Isn’t there a term for this condition? A word to describe this condition where people say one thing and do the opposite?

    I’m thinking…oh, well, can’t imagine what that word is, or if it even exists.

    But…
    How much money do the leaders of this movement gross per annum, I wonder? If abortion actually were done away with, how much money would they then gross per annum? This musing is totally tangential and has nothing at all to do with the OP, to be sure…

  11. greyghost says:

    Cane Caldo

    The fear is a stick, but maintaining Mommy Goggles is the carrot.

    Those men are so weak and lacking in faith that they cannot even half heartedly follow their supposed faith. How can any woman respect such men. They don’t and the reason for their female follow is purely to reinforce and comfort their bad behaviors.
    one more BTW. If killing a child doesn’t rate a “no” then nothing does and the MRA crowd has no chance.

  12. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    “Mommy Goggles”. Nice!

  13. PuffyJacket says:

    The correct explanation however is even uglier and harder to fathom… it is that even when it comes to Christian women murdering their own unborn children the fear of calling out sin in women is simply too much to bear.

    More to the point, it is cowardice of the worst kind.

    This tail-between-the-legs behavior is the “motivator” behind all cuckservative viewpoints on matters of SMP (from abortion to PUA).

    Regardless what one’s opinion of Trump is, we owe him a debt of gratitude for exposing this cowardice to us with perfect clarity.

  14. Pathfinderlight says:

    When I volunteered at Birthright, an anti-abortion support group, I learned about the idea that in order to save lives, that required not pushing for women who abort to be punished. The reasoning was that “judgement” would turn women off from our cause. It’s a more seductive argument when framed this way. Turn a blind eye to a woman’s sin in order to save a life. Refer to her baby as such, but never say what a horrible person she would be for offing it. And whatever you do, don’t show babies being aborted because it’s “scare tactics”.

    We all know where that lead us. Women in our culture aren’t even challenged with the idea that their fetus might be a human life. Either their mind conveniently glazes over it because it isn’t “real” to them, or they willfully disregard it. The fact is, only judgement and shaming tactics are the only thing that has the power to work.

  15. AmicusC says:

    i don’t understand people that make this argument or try to deflect fault off of women:

    “Perhaps you wouldn’t punish the woman as much as the doctor, but to not only let her off scot-free”

    if a woman hires an assassin to kill her husband, or anyone else for that matter, she doesn’t face lesser punishment or a lesser charge. this is not any different.

  16. DrTorch says:

    “mommy goggles” that’s going to get traction.

  17. I think you’re underestimating conservative male delusion. In fact, I doubt most are really afraid of scolding women. I think they are perfectly sincere. They literally don’t think women – especially potential mothers! – are as sinful as men. Thus “women are the victims here” is the only logical conclusion.

    It’s not really fear, or not mostly (perhaps partly). It’s delusion.

  18. pancakeloach says:

    “The reasoning was that “judgement” would turn women off from our cause.”

    I have no doubt whatsoever that those who advance that position sincerely believe it. I also think that they are 100% wrong. A lack of judgment is the problem, not the solution. The courage to stand fast in the face of “conservative” women showing themselves to be shrieking feminist harpies is what is required to reduce abortion… by JUDGING the women who obtain it. Without judgment of sin, of what value is the mercy of God through Christ?

    To fail to correct a woman who does wrong is to treat her as lower than a child – lower even than a pet dog. What loving parent fails to correct a child who does wrong, even if the child weeps and wails? True repentance for the sin of murdering one’s own child SHOULD come with weeping and wailing!

  19. innocentbystanderboston says:

    I learned about the idea that in order to save lives, that required not pushing for women who abort to be punished. The reasoning was that “judgement” would turn women off from our cause. It’s a more seductive argument when framed this way. Turn a blind eye to a woman’s sin in order to save a life.

    Thank you pancake.

    Boxer, if you are reading this thread, THIS is what I am referring to when I say women are NOT moral agents. You never hear men or women saying that they are discouraged about being honest with men (in general) regarding THEIR sins. That is because we expect men to understand right from wrong because as a gender, we have agency. The same cannot (nor could it ever be said) of women. It is not in their nature. Confront women in the manner in which pancake is speaking, women go feral. And when you are feral you can justify ANY behavior no matter how immoral. SSM refers to this as women getting on that hamster wheel.

    Having the red pill has taught me quite a bit, particularly about agency (or lack-there-of) among women. That is why it is so critically important for older women to take younger women under their wing and “shame them/correct them” regarding their feral behavior the way only a woman could do to another woman. Its kind of like all those Yaya youtubes that Dalrock was sharing with us where the older woman shamed the younger women into dressing better or behaving better. And the women all got quiet and respectful, an attitude they would never have if addressed by a man in a similar way.

  20. PuffyJacket says:

    I think you’re underestimating conservative male delusion. In fact, I doubt most are really afraid of scolding women. I think they are perfectly sincere.

    The only way to avoid the cognitive dissonance of never holding a female accountable for anything (which men are strongly hardwired to oppose) is to believe that she is also incapable of sin.

    This is the male version of the “rationalization hamster”. Failing to confront this delusion is a form of cowardice in itself.

  21. feeriker says:

    That is why it is so critically important for older women to take younger women under their wing and “shame them/correct them” regarding their feral behavior the way only a woman could do to another woman.

    If women lack moral agency, by what power, authority, or ability would older ones correct or mentor younger ones? Would not the older ones be just as feral as the younglingettes?

  22. Pingback: It isn’t insincerity, but fear losing women’s approval. | Reaction Times

  23. innocentbystanderboston says:

    If women lack moral agency, by what power, authority, or ability would older ones correct or mentor younger ones? Would not the older ones be just as feral as the younglingettes?

    No power, no authority, no ability. Only wisdom. Wisdom that can ONLY come about with age and experience. Wisdom that develops over many decades of submitting to a husband and seeing her life (the ups and downs) as a result of having that husband whom she has submitted (all the way up to his death in most cases) and knowing how much worse off her life would be were it not for this man to take charge of her life.

    The feral, never-married younglingette is never going to listen to a man on anything regarding her behavior. But if she hasn’t already bred various thugspawn and she thinks there may someday be a chance where she can be totally happy, she is inclined to listen to an older woman who can guide her away from her very questionable choices. It is a matter of how quickly the older one can get to the younglingette before her nature has done any permanent damage to her future.

  24. theasdgamer says:

    Why is murdering a fetus not treated legally like murdering a non-fetus?

  25. As I mentioned in the prior comment thread, legalized abortion’s latent purpose is to ensure unrestrained Hypergamy. In the aftermath of unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control and the resulting socio-sexual revolution that came after it you must consider the underlying mechanics of what it’s prime directive was – complete exclusion of men’s influence in women optimizing Hypergamy.

    Just as CH’s maxim states, the purpose of feminism is the maximal restriction of men’s sexual imperatives, while ensuring the maximal freedom of women’s. The only way to ensure this in the long term is to progressively, socially, engineer generations of men who wont just comply with it, but endorse it because they can think of no other contravening idea that wont place women’s imperatives above men’s.

    Matt literally cannot think of a social circumstance wherein women’s directives wouldn’t be the primary ones, nor one’s in which a man’s might supersede it. And in fact so thorough is the conditioning that women’s imperatives and directives fluidly override and inform his religious beliefs. You can see this illustrated in the contrast between what his “Christian” take should be with regards to men involved in abortion and the female ‘victims’ who go blameless and forgiven.

    The Feminine Imperative has reengineered foundational articles of the Christian faith and precious few followers even recognize its influence because it’s seamlessly become the faith itself. To be “christian” is to subscribe to the Feminine Imperative’s directive within the ‘faith’. And abortion, is just one of the last glaringly evident hold outs from the old set of christian books that requires men to reinforce women’s blamelessness in it.

    All men like Walsh do is reinforce women as the sole arbitrator of any and every Hypergamous choice – including the unilateral decision to abort a man’s genetic legacy – and they do so by rubber stamping God’s endorsement on it, blithely, and without an afterthought.

  26. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Why is murdering a fetus not treated legally like murdering a non-fetus?

    Because of feminism

  27. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Matt (Walsh) literally cannot think of a social circumstance wherein women’s directives wouldn’t be the primary ones, nor one’s in which a man’s might supersede it. And in fact so thorough is the conditioning that women’s imperatives and directives fluidly override and inform his religious beliefs.

    This is perfectly stated. This IS “churchianity” 101.

  28. Jim says:

    I think you’re underestimating conservative male delusion. In fact, I doubt most are really afraid of scolding women. I think they are perfectly sincere. They literally don’t think women – especially potential mothers! – are as sinful as men. Thus “women are the victims here” is the only logical conclusion.

    It’s not really fear, or not mostly (perhaps partly). It’s delusion.

    Sometimes it’s fear, sometimes it isn’t. I’ve seen this with my own eyes many times. You’ve got cowards then you have another type of pussy boy that thinks women are somehow just better creatures. It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

  29. Jim,

    Even then, the fear isn’t really of scolding women. It’s of other people’s REACTIONS to them scolding women. There is a difference, and an important one.

    One one hand, we have the Walsh’s of the world who think mothers are inherently morally superior to men.

    And on the other we have folks who know this is a crock of bullshit but who are afraid to say so because they know they’ll be spit upon by other men for daring to say it.

    And part of the whole alpha thing is the willingness to call the emperor naked and damn the consequences.

  30. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    “To be “christian” is to subscribe to the Feminine Imperative’s directive within the ‘faith’.”

    It’s little wonder the least likely person to be in church on Sunday is a single man.

  31. Just Saying says:

    he fears them punishing him by withholding their approval:

    Why would any man want the approval of Feminists? They are all annoying, ugly, loud mouthed, and just not really worth any man’s time. Better to spend your time with sweet-young-women (the younger the better) that want the same things that you do. So much more fun in all respects… And worth your time…

  32. ayatollah1988 says:

    I think it’s the same rationalization that happens with frivorce. Men assume that if a woman divorces her husband and breaks apart the family, that she must have had a good reason. Similarly, men assume that if a woman kills her child as it grows inside of her, that she must have been driven to do it and that she feels bad about it. Both assumptions are debunked by a little bit of wisdom that comes from observing how women actually behave in the real world, as opposed to how we think they would behave if they were all reasonable creatures. Too bad most men don’t have any wisdom.

  33. mike says:

    The ease with which men are fired for their beliefs has laid the groundwork for this toxic environment of spinelessness to flourish. Now, the environment is likely too far gone. The dissonance between what most men believe inside and what they must do publicly to ensure their financial solvency has created a horrible alternate reality.

  34. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’ve heard some people blame men for abortion (as with everything else).

    The “logic” is that the “deadbeat dad” got the woman pregnant, and then abandoned her. So the woman, being frightened and confused and helpless, was forced by circumstances to abort.

    Even if the father didn’t abandon the woman, even if he wanted to raise the baby, he can still be guilty of “constructively abandoning” the baby if he were poor, or jobless, or “immature,” or in some way unworthy of the mother. How could she be expected to marry such a “loser,” and raise a baby with a “loser” father?

    So if the father is less than perfect, and is unable to provide the mother with a perfect mate, then he’s “forcing” the mother to abort the baby.

    The man’s fault. The man’s sin. The sin of “not maning up.”

  35. Minesweeper says:

    @empathologism says: Llama. Good one Cane

    That is a brilliant allegory, if it was an animal being conceived would it have more or less rights that a human baby? How often are animals aborted ?

    Are animals more protected that humans while gestated ?

  36. Minesweeper says:

    Walsh is a total feminist, he may not have dyed blue hair, nipples pierced, been almost naked on a slut walk and had (at least one) abortion. But the feminist agenda is forefront in his mind as D points out.

    He maybe isnt just feminist enough for some. Ive met too many of these guys in the church and its sickening. It really is.

  37. Minesweeper says:

    the reality that our culture aborts more humans than animals, is kinda shocking.

  38. Tom K. says:

    I have been pro-life for forty years and I am convinced that it is this failure of the pro-life movement to actually tell women the truth and hold them accountable that has caused the failure of the pro-life movement, politically, but especially, socially.

    Throughout history it is not LAWS that restrain women, but her social circle. Her family, her friends. Women much more than men need to BELONG. Whereas a man is challenged from a young age to “strike out on his own” and “show the world what you are made of!” Women NEED social approval and under almost NO circumstances are willing to challenge it. Whereas a man is judged “alpha” if he can create around himself an aire that he is the arbiter of what is right and wrong within the circle HE controls. Cue Charles Manson, David Koresh, Jim Jones, John Calvin, Menno Simons, Count Von Zinzendorf, Francis of Assisi, etc.

    Women are MOST susceptible to SHAME and social ostracization. The pro-life movement denied itself it’s most powerful weapons by consciously REFUSING to hold women accountable for their freely chosen abortions. And million and millions of babies died who might not have because of it.

  39. A Visitor says:

    “it is that even when it comes to Christian women murdering their own unborn children the fear of calling out sin in women is simply too much to bear.”

    I wouldn’t say that it’s just a problem with fear of calling out women. Think of how many times you want to call someone out on their sin and then don’t for fear of a) disapproval b) loss of friendship c) being fired from a job, etc. Granted, women are still protected in that sense like it’s the ’50s or what have you.

    However, as Vox Day is fond of saying, “SJWs always double down.” So, double down right back at them. Start calling out people in a charitable way for their sin. The pack may scatter and some good may be achieved. Even if nothing comes of it, take heart that you’ve done your bit for the good fight.

    “This fear is pervasive, but it is shrouded in denial backed up by a common misconception that conservative Christians are fervent antifeminists.”

    Look at this post and see how many conservative women are anything but. It may be disappointing but unsurprising that conservative Christian women would turn out not to be anti feminists.

    “As nonchalant as Walsh pretends to be he knows very well that the women in his audience are in reality extremely feminist, and he fears them punishing him by withholding their approval”

    Or worse yet, that moolah!

    “Being ‘pro life’ means that you don’t want abortion to ‘happen’ (as if it were a spate of bad weather); but you also don’t want the women who choose abortion to be held accountable for murdering their children.”

    @Zippy Well, that may be the modern definition of pro-life. I want them to be held to account because they murdered their own child. They committed premeditated murder. They need jail time.

    @Cane

    I’d be curious where this idea they couldn’t sin came from. Granted, in the RCC I’ve yet to hear that once and I say this being raised Catholic. Is it a problem you all are seeing more on the evangelical side?

    “But she obviously does know. That’s how she ended up pregnant in an abortion clinic instead of pregnant in a dentist’s office. She knew where to go to get what she wanted.”

    On a separate note, they know what they’re doing when they’re having sex too. A great anecdote a doctor once relayed was the following, “Had a patient giving birth, screaming in agony, ‘I want my mom!’ The RN, a woman, scowled back, ‘Shut up! You weren’t screaming for your mom nine months ago!” Yes, the mother to be was not married.

    “BTW that stuff the churchians are pulling is the very reason we have a total lack of respect for Christians and the continued writing of laws and policy that completely disregard “religious beliefs” yet at the same time bend over for Islam (much respect)”

    @greyghost That’s not respect brah, it’s fear. PLEASE, WE’LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT! JUST DON’T KILL US!!

    “but llamas are cute, we cannot hurt a llama.”

    @empathologism It’s like those annoying ads from the Humane Society with those videos of the abandoned dogs and cats with the sappy music (or more irking, “In the Bleak Midwinter”, last year but all references to Christ were removed). Also, out of curiosity, did your gravatar get elephantiasis?

    “If abortion actually were done away with, how much money would they then gross per annum? ”

    @Anonymous Reader It’s like the end of State of Fear by Michael Chricton.

    “Those men are so weak and lacking in faith that they cannot even half heartedly follow their supposed faith. How can any woman respect such men.”

    @greyghost What would really be interesting to see is the fathers who refuse to call out their daughters or wives for being in favor of abortion? I guarantee that’d be a surefire way to lose all respect…oh wait, I forgot…it’s their BODDDYYYYYYY!!!

    “Regardless what one’s opinion of Trump is, we owe him a debt of gratitude for exposing this cowardice to us with perfect clarity.”

    @Puffy We owe him a debt of gratitude for this and many other exposures of the dual sided nature of American politics that we all saw but did not have solid proof of, until now.

    “When I volunteered at Birthright, an anti-abortion support group, I learned about the idea that in order to save lives, that required not pushing for women who abort to be punished. The reasoning was that “judgement” would turn women off from our cause. It’s a more seductive argument when framed this way. Turn a blind eye to a woman’s sin in order to save a life. Refer to her baby as such, but never say what a horrible person she would be for offing it. And whatever you do, don’t show babies being aborted because it’s “scare tactics”.”

    @Pathfinderling ****! Showing women the actual horror of abortion may be what they need to snap out of it. Case in point: a video once showed to my high school class showed a woman narrating about abortion and then visiting an abortion clinic and actually witnessing an abortion. Before she went there, she was pro-choice. Post visiting the abortion clinic and watching the actual procedure, she said she’d come to the conclusion that a women should have her opinion settled BEFORE becoming pregnant.

    On a related note, those women that celebrate abortions (Google it if you don’t believe me; there’s photos of them posing with a whiteboard with how many they’ve had with grins on their face) may very well be demonically possessed and should be avoided at all costs.

    “They literally don’t think women – especially potential mothers! – are as sinful as men. ”

    @malcomthecynic Granted, an exception does not the rule disprove. However, I’m the exception to what you wrote. Cheers brah.

    “The courage to stand fast in the face of “conservative” women showing themselves to be shrieking feminist harpies is what is required to reduce abortion… by JUDGING the women who obtain it. ”

    @pancakeloach Ding ding ding! We are called to objectively judge the sins of others! In the case of women that off their own children in a procedure known as abortion, they are guilty of murder and a mortal sin.

    Maybe an effective protest against women going into abortion clinics would be (if you note they’re not married), “Hey, if you go in there and come out without a baby, you can kiss any chance of marriage goodbye? Who’d want to marry a baby murderer?!?”

    “That is why it is so critically important for older women to take younger women under their wing and shame them/correct them.”

    @IBB Slut shaming works. I remember the ire I drew from someone (a woman, naturally) by saying that women on birth control are, by definition, sluts. Yes, there is a narrow range of legitimate application but don’t kid yourself. Just like 97%+ of abortions are elective, I’d hazard to guess that 99.5% of women on birth control are using it to prevent pregnancy.

    “If women lack moral agency, by what power, authority, or ability would older ones correct or mentor younger ones? Would not the older ones be just as feral as the younglingettes?”

    @freeriker, Find those that are rational (to the extent that’s possible) and have them mentor the younger ones. Donal rightfully points out that there’s too much comfort in the West for women. Maybe discontent at hitting back at the harpies would help women overall. Win-win!

    “As I mentioned in the prior comment thread, legalized abortion’s latent purpose is to ensure unrestrained Hypergamy. In the aftermath of unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control and the resulting socio-sexual revolution that came after it you must consider the underlying mechanics of what it’s prime directive was – complete exclusion of men’s influence in women optimizing Hypergamy.”

    @Rollo Nobody will ever admit it, though. You speak the truth, obviously.

    “Why would any man want the approval of Feminists? They are all annoying, ugly, loud mouthed, and just not really worth any man’s time. Better to spend your time with sweet-young-women (the younger the better) that want the same things that you do. So much more fun in all respects… And worth your time…”

    @Just Saying Some may want approval of the feminists as they realize that many of the sweet young women will subconsciously look up to the feminists.

  40. Loose Goose says:

    A friend of mine’s work involves being buried in medical records. She is deeply anti-abortion. What she knows, though, is how many women have had abortions. She can’t help but come across it in reviewing a medical record, and it’s there in so many records. We are surrounded by women who have had abortions, and will never breathe a word of it to any of us. What does that do to them, deep inside? I won’t speculate here, but I can’t imagine it does any good, whether through guilt, or through denial. These women will never judge another woman, lest they be judged by others (they are already judging themselves, or twisting their souls into pretzels to avoid self-judgment).

  41. enrique says:

    I like that Dalrock is getting mentioned here and there on the internets. Not sure how you came up with the name Dal, but it has a ring to it that is befitting of WinterFell.

  42. Minesweeper says:

    @Loose Goose,
    “We are surrounded by women who have had abortions, and will never breathe a word of it to any of us. What does that do to them, deep inside?”

    ive met a few women who fall into into this category, one who said she didnt understand the damage it did to her but God forgive’s, another who after announced that she wanted a Christian man in her life.

    and more, all broken, God does forgive make whole murders upon gut wrenching repentance.

  43. Minesweeper says:

    @Loose Goose, if I may add, none of these women have been condemned by the women in church or would be by the male feminists if they found out.

  44. Striver says:

    “I’ve heard some people blame men for abortion (as with everything else).”

    Well… yes, in many cases the sperm donor is to blame as much as the woman.

    Look, suppose you go down to the local pick-up joint and set up a one night stand with some skank. She gets pregnant. Decides to keep the baby. She isn’t a good mother, you can’t come to a good agreement on how to raise the kid, the kid takes after her genetically in many ways and you don’t even like her, etc. etc. etc. You brought a kid into the world under bad circumstances. It’s 100% your fault. (It’s also 100% her fault; you both are to blame because either of you could have stopped the incident from taking place all on your own.)

    So if she aborts instead, isn’t that also your fault? You don’t want abortions, don’t knock up women who will abort. If you are married to a woman, then yes, you have no say, although you can still use birth control if you think she might. But many abortions are not in marriages. For those, yes, the men bear a heavy burden of blame for recreational sex.

    If women have no agency, then why don’t the men step up? Stop sleeping with loose women. It’s not that hard.

  45. Jg says:

    To Dalrock’s point about their fear, I have been band( a couple time, under different usernames) from making comments over at lifesite news because I made statements that would hold women accoutable

  46. Anon says:

    Everyone should note that this fear is what stems from cuckservatives desire to blame MEN (yes, men) for abortion.

    That is why CS laws are so misandric, and involve jailing men for failing to meet imputed income. This is precisely derived from the cartoonish chivalry desire of cuckservatives. I never got the sense that ordinary Democrats were that zealous about jailing men simply for losing their job while under a CS judgement (and removing them from the pool of taxpayers).

    Hence, given that the only choices are pro-choice and cuckservative ‘pro-life but never penalize the woman’, pro-choice is better for most men in a pragmatic sense. At least innocent men aren’t jailed. Think of each abortion as a man avoiding 23 years of slavery or prison.

    Sure, it would be great if a proper Biblical rule on the illegality of abortion existed, but since it does not, fewer innocent men in jail is the lesser evil than cuckservative misandry.

    I should add that this is why Trump is so hated by cuckservatives. He is proof that the loud alpha male gets the hot chicks. Cuckservatives hate being reminded that they are just beta bux at best, and their cartoonish pedestalization does not work. Obama in the WH with an ugly wife allowed them to continue their delusions, but Trump reminds them of their loserdom.

  47. Anon says:

    Being ‘pro life’ means that you don’t want abortion to ‘happen’ (as if it were a spate of bad weather); but you also don’t want the women who choose abortion to be held accountable for murdering their children.

    This is why the CS laws are so brutally misandric towards the father (truly the most unjust law in the US in the last 150 years). The law is pretty bad for children too.

    It is all about cuckservatives wishing to pedestalize women. The cuckservative faction of this country really has become a goddess cult.

  48. feeriker says:

    @Loose Goose, if I may add, none of these women have been condemned by the women in church or would be by the male feminists if they found out.

    No, indeed they wouldn’t be. Matter o’ fact, it’s highly likely that if a woman came forward and admitted to throwing out the bun in her oven that she’d be cheered and haled as a brave heroine “for having the courage to admit to doing such a horrible thing.”

    Very quickly such a woman would be all but canonized by the church “leadership,” which would at the same time waste no time and effort in castigating men for making poor creatures like this one suffer in shamed, guilty silence.

    Oh, and of course there would also be shame-laden rants calling for some sucker to “man up and marry” the remorseful murderess, if she hasn’t already trapped one.

  49. Anon says:

    PuffyJacket,

    More to the point, it is cowardice of the worst kind.

    It is cowardice AND stupidity.

    It is stupid because they still don’t realize, even after 20 years of Internet content on the subject, that women are REPELLED by a groveling, pedestalizing man. For a cuckservative to think this is what women want is just plain dumb. They are cowards and idiots at the same time.

    This is yet another reason cuckservatives hate Trump, because he reminds them that chicks dig alpha types….

    Look at that entire Michelle Fields incident and how cuckservatives behaved…

  50. Boxer says:

    No, indeed they wouldn’t be. Matter o’ fact, it’s highly likely that if a woman came forward and admitted to throwing out the bun in her oven that she’d be cheered and haled as a brave heroine “for having the courage to admit to doing such a horrible thing.”

    Amazingly enough, you’re wrong. There was a twitter phenom, about a year ago, known as #postyourabortion … both women and men mocked and derided the scroungy feminists who participated in that abominable idiocy.

    Not to say that it doesn’t happen; but, it’s probably limited to small, especially degenerate enclaves we don’t hear about. Normal people think that abortion ranges somewhere between utterly sad and regrettable (in the case of rape or sure birth defects) to absolutely pathetic, and something only a total loser would even consider doing. Sensible people like babies (even those of us who never want one like the idea in the abstract.) Hating abortion is a natural and inborn trait to all healthy people.

  51. Pathfinderlight says:

    @Pancakeloach
    “To fail to correct a woman who does wrong is to treat her as lower than a child – lower even than a pet dog.”

    The problem with correcting women in our culture reflects just as much on the women as it does on the men. Many people find that trying to correct a woman is like talking to a brick wall, Consider it this way, what is a better use of your time, to instruct a girl on how to properly view human lives, or to try and fix a damaged woman?

    @Innocentbystanderboston

    “…we expect men to understand right from wrong because as a gender, we have agency. The same cannot (nor could it ever be said) of women.”

    A quick google search brings us this link:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency
    Which says:
    “Moral agency is an individual’s ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is “a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.””

    As Christians, we are called to hold women to standard morality. Women are capable of rational thought like math and common sense. Not as good as men perhaps, but when a woman does math, we don’t say “oh that’s a good job, your value is just as good as anyone else’s”…we say, “you got it wrong, here’s why…”. The reason why you don’t pull punches is that doing so leads to shoddy math. Morality, like math, is based on an objective truth. Our society’s current problem is that we’ve long since adopted the two approaches:
    1) All people in good faith come to roughly the same conclusions about morality, so there’s no need for rigorous instruction
    2) Women can’t grasp morality so there’s no need to teach them rigorously.

    Since the early days of feminism, it’s now clear that #1 is wrong. There are simply some people who have the desire to rule over others, and to hell with the consequences for everyone else. Number 2, on the other hand, we can get away with as a society if and only if we’re willing to subject women directly to men’s moral authority. Our laws clearly aren’t set up to do this, hence the need for rigorous moral training. To me, this is a fulfillment of a woman’s moral agency, rather than a denial of it. It may not be as capable as a man’s; it may not be their specialty, but women make moral choices all their lives. We see that even the little ones matter, like “how much does she submit to her husband today”, or “did she tell that other woman not to spread gossip”?

  52. Minesweeper says:

    @feeriker says:
    “@Loose Goose, if I may add, none of these women have been condemned by the women in church or would be by the male feminists if they found out.

    No, indeed they wouldn’t be. Matter o’ fact, it’s highly likely that if a woman came forward and admitted to throwing out the bun in her oven that she’d be cheered and haled as a brave heroine “for having the courage to admit to doing such a horrible thing.”

    Very quickly such a woman would be all but canonized by the church “leadership,” which would at the same time waste no time and effort in castigating men for making poor creatures like this one suffer in shamed, guilty silence.

    Oh, and of course there would also be shame-laden rants calling for some sucker to “man up and marry” the remorseful murderess, if she hasn’t already trapped one.”

    No, even the sickest f**ks posing as men feministas in church, know not to broadcast this result. As it impinges on her reputation (screw whatever God thinks obviously).

    The blue rinsed, nipple pierced, slutted walk brigade would absolutely rejoice in her abomination.

    Boxer, indeed you are right sir.

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    When I attended graduate school in Los Angeles, back in the 1980s, I some Republican women. All were “pro-choice” and said that “anti-choice” was a deal-breaker for them when voting.

    Republican women, and likely many conservative and even “Christian” women, see abortion as an issue of women’s rights and women’s privacy.

  54. Hmm says:

    On the question raised earlier about the idea that women do not sin. I expect it arose from the concept of the moral superiority of women to men that arose during the Victorian era in the mid and late 1800s. During that time, women were at the forefront of organizations dedicated to saving girls from prostitution, eradicating demon rum, and bringing husbands home at night. From the widely held concept of earlier centuries that women were weak, unable to learn, and a temptation and distraction to right-thinking men, suddenly women took the high moral ground against what they considered men’s obvious sinfulness.

    I think that idea persisted in the church into the twentieth century and has lately morphed into the current view that women’s sins are mainly those of omission and submitting to male sinfulness.

    But another source is the rising notion that sin and abuse are a binary zero-sum game: that if (for instance) a woman is abused, it is either her fault or that of her abuser (no sharing of fault), and of course, since she is the victim, she cannot in the nature of the case bear any blame. To say that she might bear some small responsibility in tempting her abuser is tantamount to saying her abuser is innocent.

  55. enrique says:

    What do you call a man who either cannot or refuses to financially support his children = Deadbeat, subject to public shaming, losses of professional licenses, driver’s license and prison.

    What do you call a woman that either cannot or refuses to financially support her children = A recipient of the hard earned money of other taxpayers (i.e. Welfare recipient).

    A woman who is in her late 40s, who has had a degree for 25 years, who has custody of two teens (one graduating in a month), can work 10-15 hours a week (when she wants), make around 2,000 – $8,000 a year, and live off the child support–and NEVER face public shaming or prison. Notwithstanding the fact that if she is only making BELOW poverty level, how is she logically NOT using the Child Support for herself. Not only will she face no consequences, she can get the Courts (using your taxpayer funded “Attorneys”) to go argue that you should have to pay MORE–even while publicly acknowledging that the mother is not even working a full work week…something Teens have traditionally done in the Summer, and most normal adults do all year.

    I know, because this has been the situation for me the last 15 years. My wife and I marvel at a system where a woman (my ex) can actually stand in a court room and make demands of me–and NO ONE in the Court room, including the female judge, seems to get the hidden (and ironic) message–“WORK IS FOR YOU GUYS…YOU TOO JUDGE…COUNTY ATTORNEYS…CLERK…NOT FOR ME…I’M JUST A “SINGLE MOM” TRYING TO GET BY”.

  56. JohnK says:

    For what it’s worth, there is, apparently, a long [i.e., pre-feminist, patriarchal] tradition in Canon Law NOT to punish (‘censure’) the woman procuring an abortion. Here’s Ed Peters, devout Catholic and prominent Canon Lawyer for his diocese:

    “I have argued for years that the correct application of canon law visits censures on abortionists and NOT on women seeking abortions. See, e.g., my ‘Exemption from a penalty’ and ‘Excommunication for abortion’, in 2010 CLSA Advisory Opinions 169-174 and 178-182 respectively. Might be worth recalling, given Donald Trump’s idiotic call for criminal punishments of women seeking abortion.” [CLSA=Canon Law Society of America]

    Got the above from his Facebook page:
    https://www.facebook.com/canonlawinfo

    So, ‘fear of losing women’s approval’ was, historically, NOT the reason for the lack of censure. After all Latin canon law was never well-known for seeking women’s approval, let alone allowing that to influence law. Of course, whether that venerable wisdom regarding women’s culpability still applies in a ‘You Go, Grrl’ age is a question. And Peters’ ‘idiotic’ charge is distressing.

    Too be fair, lots of his commenters are aghast. In response, Peters semi-backtracks and says in effect, ‘Well, that’s what Canon Law says — read that first; then get back to me.’

  57. @ A Visitor

    Also, out of curiosity, did your gravatar get elephantiasis?

    Nope, he got made of wood

  58. Morgan says:

    Whether or not a woman should have access to legal abortion is a losing battle. The real issue is that women insist on having their cake and eating it too. They want their cake of sexual freedom and be able to eat the consequences as an abortion. But by the time she wants an abortion, she’s already screwed up too much. We need to take away her cake in the first place. Criminalize pre-marital sex. Make it a misdemeanor with a light 6-9 month jail sentence. A pregnancy test without being married is all that would be needed to prove her guilty. The man would also have to be guilty if they can prove who he is. Of course, they could both get off without a conviction by getting married and having the child. And a woman accusing a man of a one night stand would also be admitting her own guilt, so mostly things would balance out. It could probably even be packaged for feminists as a way to decrease campus regret rape. Only real Chad’s would dare to have sex under those consequences.

    Think about that for a second and let me know if I’m crazy. But what if we enforced God’s law, so we didn’t have to enforce God’s law.

  59. Morgan says:

    @Enrique

    My life too, for the last 3 and next 12 years. My income decreased so I asked the judge to decrease my payment. But since my ex chose a lower paying job, and reduced her hours her income decreased more than mine, the judge actually ordered me to pay MORE child support on LESS income.

    But where are all the real men, right? Far away from real women, if they’re lucky.

  60. Morgan says:

    @anon
    “Think of each abortion as a man avoiding 23 years of slavery or prison.”

    This is very tempting, but abortion isn’t the solution to our misandrous Child Support problem. We should go back to the old days when a father isn’t liable for children born out of wedlock. If he hasn’t committed to marrying her, he obviously hasn’t committed to financially supporting her for 23 years (I’ll be supporting my ex divorced longer than we were married). She knows if she’s married or not when she gets pregnant. It’s her choice to keep the child with or without the cash and prizes from the father. Sadly, I think more women would abort their own child if there wasn’t any profit in keeping it.

  61. Kevin says:

    Dalrock you continue to frame this wrong. The anti- abortion people have not asserted pastoral authority over all women and have no duty to proclaim their son or call them to repentance. They are working to achieve a political goal which sometimes requires submersion of some beliefs/goals in the quest for other goals that may be more attainable. You can label it fear or anything else but it is properly labeled streategy. What they think in their heart of hearts hardly matters. But if fearless Trump realizes how dangerous it is politically to propose punishing women for abortions than it becomes clear that politically it is a bad way to advance your goals.

    This type of strategic thinking is well known to you and everyone.

  62. Boxer says:

    Off Topic. Note the scare quotes…

    Pastor Saeed Abedini says his life is harder now than when he was being held hostage in an Iranian prison because of the media attention surrounding the troubles in his marriage and “false accusations” against him.

    Much more at:
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/saeed-abedini-marriage-troubles-my-life-is-harder-now-than-when-i-was-in-prison-160673/

    I’m grateful to Dalrock blog and all participants for bringing this man to my attention. He’s suffered a lot, for no good reason, and of course his children are paying the price too.

    This man has a little girl and boy who are being deprived of their father’s love. This is how young hoes and thugs are made by a decadent society. Totally shameful!

    Boxer

  63. Anon,

    Think of each abortion as a man avoiding 23 years of slavery or prison.

    This is one of the most vile things I have ever read. Thinking of the murder of children as “avoiding slavery” isn’t “pragmatism”, it’s pure evil.

  64. Gunner Q says:

    ayatollah1988 @ April 4, 2016 at 6:42 pm:
    “I think it’s the same rationalization that happens with frivorce. Men assume that if a woman divorces her husband and breaks apart the family, that she must have had a good reason.”

    It’s an easy assumption. She wouldn’t abandon a decent husband unless he was a closet monster. She wouldn’t abort her own child unless she was desperate. “They Cannot Possibly Be That Stupid” should be a meme.

    Tom K. @ April 4, 2016 at 8:47 pm:
    “Throughout history it is not LAWS that restrain women, but her social circle.”

    Of course laws restrain women… when they’re enforced. Social circles are like consciences. When they work, few laws are needed, but they don’t work without serious moral training.

  65. feeriker says:

    Amazingly enough, you’re wrong.

    I certainly hope so. Your Twitter reference might just give some cause four hope.

  66. feeriker says:

    Boxer says:
    April 5, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Again, I cannot imagine being in Saeed’s shoes right now. Neither do I doubt for a second that he is in greater emotional and spiritual pain now than when he was imprisoned.

    BTW, those “Christian” Post people are vile excuses for human beings.

  67. Holyhellfire says:

    I have a theory that Christian women are the most ardent feminists of all, and are quietly leading the charge against Biblical masculinity. It would explain why the “Christian” subversions of things like male leadership/headship, female responsibility for actions, and church leadership being male is so insidious and cunning. Secular feminism is not nearly as calculated in its methods. Maybe THIS type of thing is why we need more men in church…snuffing out this level of deception will be one hell of a fight (pun intended).

  68. PuffyJacket says:

    I have a theory that Christian women are the most ardent feminists of all, and are quietly leading the charge against Biblical masculinity.

    This is true.

    Because not only do Christian feminists refuse to hold women to account on abortion (and divorce, sexual immorality, you name it), they also zealously support marriage 2.0 and child support with sole custody to the mother and debtor’s prison for the father. At least non-Christian feminists are less enthusiastic about destroying a man this way.

    If the only meaningful distinction between pinko-feminists and churchian-feminists is that churchians promise to “punish the abortionist” (not holding my breath), then the overall tally clearly gives churchians a commanding lead.

    The “hatred” pinko-feminists proclaim of Christianity has all been one really big misunderstanding.

  69. Meh…The liberal feminists that are pro-abort-my-baby-if-its-conveeeenient are also big animal rights fans. Picture that. Hang with my nutty thought process here. In their thoughts, in their hearts, the lobsters in my pot have a higher place on the moral/life-ladder than the baby growing in their own belly, said baby being the result of their own sexual irresponsibility. Worse, the overall secular society approves wholeheartedly. Looking in on such people from out in space, how would a rational being expect anything but the extinction of a species that values the life-rights existence of my buttery lobsters over the miracle of the birth and existence of their own young?

    A nutty stream of thought, but it pretty much sums up the folks we here are diametrically opposed to. Eventually, they un-breed themselves out of our society, right?

  70. Hmm says:

    “Eventually, they un-breed themselves out of our society, right?”

    They would if left to themselves. That’s why they are so ardent to convert more to their cause.

  71. Minesweeper says:

    @Jim, ive had similar thoughts.

    I do wonder how many vegan females who would refuse to eat a chicken egg on the grounds that its murder, have aborted their own children to “save the planet” or some other lame excuse ?

    I’ve met yet any yet (that I know of) but knowing how sick the mind can be its not far outside the realm of lunacy for these individuals.

    Condolences to the guys above who got hit with the chillimony laws, its a shit sandwich we have been served, no doubt. And will serve as nothing but a warning to future generations. I mean if they really want men to never be involve conception they are certainly going about it the right way.

  72. pancakeloach says:

    “Eventually, they un-breed themselves out of our society, right?”

    Given the historical prevalence of infanticide as a cultural practice, I doubt it. It’s impossible to breed a sinless human being, after all. Moderns’ societies are no more righteous than the ancients’, though they like to pretend to superiority.

  73. Pingback: Devil’s Advocate | Dalrock

  74. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    The other day I wrote (above):

    I don’t disagree that fear exists, but it seems to me that the bigger reason is a genuine (and foolish) disbelief in female intention to sin.

    I’ve been thinking about it more, and I wanted to say that I think I was wrong–and that you’re correct–that men’s fear of women’s disapproval is the foremost factor driving their behavior. It’s of no consequence to others, but for me it’s a significant shift because I realize now one more significant way in which I have trouble relating to the men around me. My personal experience with fear of women ended in middle school. It’s saddening, and repulsive.

  75. Cane Caldo says:

    @A Visitor

    I’d be curious where this idea they couldn’t sin came from. Granted, in the RCC I’ve yet to hear that once and I say this being raised Catholic. Is it a problem you all are seeing more on the evangelical side?

    No. It it present in Roman Catholics of all flavors (trad, guitar, and everything else) as well as Protestants of all denominations of which I am aware. As I’m sure you are aware: Roman Catholics are in both the front ranks and the leadership of dominant pro-life groups. Which of them are holding women to account? Which of them would even dare to suggest some women should sent to convents for everyone’s protection?

  76. @Cane,

    Yes. This is a problem that transcends denominations.

  77. tz says:

    Deut 25:11-12
    “If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

    No pity for something less than murder.

    The other parallel is torture, or drone strikes on ambiguous targets blowing up entire buildings and often not getting any “terrorist” or double tap where they blow up rescuers who are NOT terrorists (think medics and firemen) and/or mourners at the funeral (both are war crimes). I’m not quite sure what justifies the intentional killing of large numbers of people by weak association – they aren’t “accessories”. I’d add nuking or firebombing. Many Christians are quite comfortable with the slaughter of these innocents if it occasionally gets someone guilty.

  78. mrteebs says:

    This assessment is hard to argue with, but Agnostic has the motivation wrong. It isn’t that the leaders of the pro life movement don’t sincerely believe that abortion is murder. This is I should note the obvious conclusion nearly everyone will draw when seeing the pro life outrage to the proposal that women be punished in some way for obtaining illegal abortions. It was in fact my own (initial) gut reaction to the outrage.

    The correct explanation, however, is even uglier and harder to fathom. It isn’t that the pro life movement doesn’t believe that abortion is murder; it is that even when it comes to Christian women murdering their own unborn children the fear of calling out sin in women is simply too much to bear.

    The above marks one of those moments when a bolt of lightening hits and the terrifying reality of the societal monster we have created comes into even more sickening focus.

    Dalrock is spot on here. Rather than call women to account, it has quite literally become preferable to let them get away with murder.

    We have ceded so much ground that it is becoming impossible to even imagine an equitable reset.

    Newsflash: the abortion industry is not creating demand for their product. They are simply supplying in response to demand.

  79. Pingback: Women’s lack of culpability in the areas of sex, relationships, and reproduction – it’s a Western Civ thang. | The Sunshine Thiry Blog

  80. Pingback: Though, It Would Explain “Pro-Lifers” | Things that We have Heard and Known

  81. Pingback: Masculine Monday- #7 | Donal Graeme

  82. Pingback: Christian goddess worship; we are not worthy! | Dalrock

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