Friday, July 12, 2013

Guest Post by Zelda

It's Not About Your Vaginae (NSFW)

In case it has escaped notice, much of the pro-abortion argument is focused on vaginas (or vaginae for the Latin-minded). And it must be. For to couch it in anything other than the most introspective of terms (and really, can you get any more introspective than your own internal genitalia?) means that we must confront human rights abuses too gruesome to even contemplate. So despite appearances:

It is far easier to preserve one's sanity by dancing around in vagina costumes, chanting "Hail Satan," and reciting bad poetry to the ill-used orifices than to acknowledge the stark reality that this:

Is Not A Vagina.

And this?

Also Not A Vagina.

And this?

Again, Not A Vagina.

The above Not A Vagina is actually Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist convicted of murdering the little girl in the picture above his. He was also convicted of killing a woman and rather savagely injuring some vaginas. He was also allowed to operate for decades without regulation in spite of multiple complaints. And in an age of ever increasing government regulation and surveillance, this might make one pause to ask whether the entire debate is actually about women's health.

Because that is, of course, the predominant argument for legalized abortion. Women's health. Now pardon me if I've missed something, but Gosnell's abortion clinic doesn't strike me as particularly healthy. Landfills are cleaner.

So when a bill comes up for consideration that would prevent legal back alley butchers like Gosnell from killing women and murdering children in conditions that would make Sub-Saharan Africa blush, you'd think the pro-abortion supporters would joyfully don their vagina costumes and do the traditional Dance of the Twittering Labia, but. . . well . . . no. No. It seems they are upset about this. It's better for women to go to fiends like Gosnell because otherwise they might have to go to fiends like Gosnell. Logic! Science! Evolution! Vagiiiiiiiiiiinas!

So here is the truth. No one cares about your poor, sad vaginas. No one. Do with them what you like. Use them, abuse them, pet them, poke them, take them out for steak dinner at the Elk's Club. No one cares, except for nice religious people who think you are of such intrinsic value to Almighty God that you ought treat yourself with respect and care where every aspect of your life, including your fertility, is concerned. But they're deluded.

No one else cares what you do with your vagina. Just don't kill babies.


Foxy Wizard said...

I don't even know what to say in response to this post. This monster served to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Liberal women. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, how can you let a monster like this get a free pass? How can you let the Muslim Brotherhood get away with scores of rapes in Egypt with nary a peep of protest? Why does the gay lobby stay silent regarding Obama's support for the Muslim Brotherhood, when in fact the first people to get beheaded will be gays once the Caliphate is established?

jim marquis said...

Of course, if we outlaw legal abortion then all we'll have left are the Gosnells. Of course, if you're wealthy enough you can just go to Canada and get one.

free0352 said...

Jim Marquis,

So what's your point?

Abortion is an inherently violent act. Somebody is dead at the end of every abortion. Sometimes homicide is justifiable -self defense being the best example.

Sometimes it isn't justifiable. I can't see how a woman and a doctor conspiring to kill a baby is justifiable in probably 99% of cases. Lets face it, the vast, vast majority of abortions aren't because of rape or incest or due to medical reasons. 99% of abortions are basically birth control. Proabortion types can never give me a strait answer as to why they equate killing a baby with slapping on a condom or eating a contraceptive pill. As Zelda pointed out, they just start screaming about genitalia.

Now, if we admit that abortion is what it clearly is, a violent act that ends in the death of a fetal baby - then why should I care a rat's ass if the mother lives?

I mean, if a woman dies in the killing of her born infant, should I care?

Zelda said...

Of course, if we outlaw legal abortion then all we'll have left are the Gosnells

The bill doesn't outlaw abortions. It was meant to put the Gosnell's out of business. But that doesn't seem to matter to the pro-abortion lobby and their paid clowns because it really isn't about women's health. It's about population control and performing as many abortions for as high a profit as possible. Suddenly the progressives are frothing capitalists.

CrabbyOldMan said...

It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed.


However, viability varies greatly among pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a "grey area”…
In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted between 13 and 15 weeks, 4.2% between 16 and 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks…


So, in the case of 98.6% of all abortions, there remain only the same invalid, tiresome, hairsplitting arguments that lost the Catholic Church the birth control pill debate back in the 1960s.
This leaves only the late term abortions left to discuss. The others are a non-issue.
I have yet to see anyone come up with the reasons given for the (under 1%) late term abortions, and the merits and demerits of those reasons.
What I see is that the anti-abortion zealots (who really want to ban all abortions) have lost the debate and so have been driven to shouting “baby killer”, gruesome pictures and Kermit Gosnell (who no one has any sympathy for) horror stories.

jim marquis said...

Zelda, I'm curious...what do you (a woman)think of what Free said about not caring whether women seeking abortions live or die?

Zelda said...

Some would agree with him and some would still want to kill babies.

But again, this issue is not only about women, no matter how many times they say 'vagina.' It's also about living, helpless, voiceless babies who face certain death with no choice at all and clinics operating well outside the general standards of safety, health, and even basic hygiene.

So what do you think about Gosnell operating his disgusting murder factory with no oversight in spite of multiple complaints?

jim marquis said...

You didn't really answer my question but I will answer yours...

It was absolutely wrong.

free0352 said...

I asked a question too, and didn't get an answer. I think its a very valid question.

If abortion kills a baby, why should I care if one of the killers dies during the homicide?

free0352 said...

And as for women, I bet if you polled all the fetal girls I'm advocating human rights for, I bet I'd win out over the abortionists. I'm the one on the side of women's rights beleive it or not. The keeping fetal femals alive side.

CrabbyOldMan said...

If saving the baby kills the woman, how shall we punish the baby? The doctor?
I think this is just as valid as your question.

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

I think the Gosnells of the world should be duct taped to their stirrup chairs and sodomized with a rodent on a daily basis - by a sadist who masturbates while watching them writhe in pain.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Well, Planned Parenthood was developed primarily to kill sub-humans, it just got out of control. Perhaps they should proudly return to their Sangerist roots and publically call for the demise of the mental defectives, negroes, slavs and other subhuman species.

free0352 said...


Obviously you simply don't.

We're talking about abortion as birth control here and you know it. Your post on "viability" is false on its face because babies aren't viable after they are born. They still need mothers to care for them or in 100% of cases they die. Go leave a baby by its self out in the woods, guess what? Its toast. So by your own logic, we should be able to kill born children, after all... they aren't viable.

And for that matter, a human isn't viable under water or in space. So is it open season on astronauts? Viability is a very relative and largely meaningless term. Abortion is a violent act, a homicide. Some homicides are justifiable, others not. DOme dizzy bitch who whacks her fetus out because of a drunken night of unprotected sex isn't a victim, the aborted child is. Thats where are sane person would put their sympathy.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Free0352 apparently needs a few reading comprehension classes. I have been talking about sentience, NOT viability. The two words are NOT synonyms. My concern has always been about inflicting pain and suffering, and so all the bleating does not apply to what is a POTENTIAL person who cannot experience either.
By the way, it is very useful to compare the definitions of “soul” and “sentience”.
This should shed some light on the arguments that were used (remain?) against that dreadful birth control.
The article starts with:
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. “Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

The second paragraph starts with Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful.

Haverwilde said...

It is unfortunate that some use abortion as birth control; but there is nothing that can be done about that.
There are some that want to ban all abortions--they have lost the debate.
There are some that want to be able to abort anytime up to and including when labor begins--They are disgusting.
There are some, like Jim M. who wish to comment as a means of ridiculing an opposing political faction--they are not quite as disgusting as the 'any abortion anytime' crowd.
It is past time for this country to establish some limits on late term abortions except to save the life of the mother.

free0352 said...

Sentience doesn't mean anything. Does a person need to contemplate their own navel now so they can have basic legal rights? How intelligent is a newborn? Then can't even work their eyeballs.

You aren't any less a person because you can't do math equations yet.

And as for the Pope, either for or against it isn't going to get much millage with this little tan duck, because to me the Pope is just another mutherfucker who practices an ancient superstition. My opinion on this matter is based on law, and its equal protection there of. If you can't do it to a born baby, you can't do it to an unborn one. Pain and suffering is irrelevant. If I can't feel pain, am I any less murdered if I didn't suffer?

CrabbyOldMan said...

I thought that the following from Microsoft Word Encarta Dictionary English (North America) and Microsoft Word Thesaurus would be helpful to the discussion:

Conscious capable of feeling and perception
Antonyms are unconscious, dead, and inanimate
Nonphysical aspect of person the complex of human attributes that manifests as consciousness, thought, feeling, and will, regarded as distinct from the physical body
Able to grow
Biology - able to germinate or grow
Medicine - describes a fetus that can survive outside the womb
A living thing, e.g. a plant, animal, virus or bacterium
Cause something living to die
The crime of killing another person and not in self-defense or with other extenuating circumstances recognized by law

It seems that the difference of opinion between me and those in Free0352’s camp stems from what we see as being reasonably defined as a person and therefore covered by the homicide laws.
I don’t shrink from saying that abortion involves killing something. The question is what. I contend that killing a non-sentient organism (which is 98% of the time) is not remotely comparable, let alone equivalent, to killing “babies” or Uncle Charley. It is closest to killing a plant.
I think a close examination would reveal most of the remaining 2% are and should be covered by “other extenuating circumstances recognized by law”. The late discovery that the fetus would be born with severe birth defects is one such circumstance. The life of the mother being at stake is certainly another.
I am unconvinced that any meaningful number of the late term abortions occurs for the lurid reasons advanced by the propaganda of the anti-abortion forces.

Freemom said...

Crabby, you are SO out of date. Watch this video by Dr. Bernard Nathason, former abortionist. Watch the whole thing and learn about modern medical science.

Freemom said...

Of course, sleeping, waking, stretching and thumbsucking (at 8 weeks) is not indicative of ANYTHING....

Freemom said...

Do you realize that some people have a higher pain threshold than others...WHAT IS THE SCIENCE

Zelda said...

Sorry, Jim. I didn't respond to your question because I misread it. I don't think free was saying he didn't care about women dying. I think he was asking why he should care about women dying and not their babies. Slightly more complex.

Speaking for myself, I don't want anyone dying. Women or babies. I would love for the inherent rights of the unborn to be protected, but until then, I don't want women dying in unregulated, LEGALLY operating, butcher shops. But the pro-abortionists don't care. Their population control agenda is so rabid, they don't care if women go to Gosnell.

Cobalt-Blue said...

I find it interesting that certain women define themselves with their vagina. It's been my experience that their attitude elicits a very apt word to describe, and in turn is synonymous with vagina: It rhymes with the word that means to stalk and take prey.

Anonymous said...

To kill a child in the mother's womb(abortion) is already a sin in the eyes of God. Babbie's are angels from heaven. I really don't know how to comment in this blog because i pitied the women and as well as the child in them.
I hope you have a good day. Thank you for posting this kind of information.


Cindy Dy said...

Those look interesting. Keep posting.


Nikolay ebardeev said...

There are some fascinating time limits in this article however I don’t know if I see all of them heart to heart. There is some validity however I will take maintain opinion till I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we wish more! Added to FeedBurner as effectively free online casino slots