Tag Archives: Abortion

News

When feminists defended an accused rapist by attacking the character of his victims

4 Comments

Huma Abedin (left), Harvey Weinstein (center), Hillary Clinton (right)

Huma Abedin (left), Harvey Weinstein (center), Hillary Clinton (right)

I think that the history of the presidency of Bill Clinton is important, because we have to really understand what the “feminism” of feminists really means. Does it mean protecting the equal rights of women? Or does it means something else?

Read some of this article in the leftist The Atlantic.

Excerpt:

Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

You won’t find a worst example of a man using power to force innocent women to satisfy his sexual desires. Surely, no Christian man could condone this. But do you know who did defend this? Why, the head of the radical feminist movement, that’s who:

The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused.

[…]Called “Feminists and the Clinton Question,” it was written in March of 1998, when Paula Jones’s harassment claim was working its way through court. It was printed seven days after Kathleen Willey’s blockbuster 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley. If all the various allegations were true, wrote Steinem, Bill Clinton was “a candidate for sex addiction therapy.” To her mind, the most “credible” accusations were those of Willey, who she noted was “old enough to be Monica Lewinsky’s mother.” And then she wrote the fatal sentences that invalidated the new understanding of workplace sexual harassment as a moral and legal wrong: “Even if the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb, and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took ‘no’ for an answer.”

Steinem said the same was true of Paula Jones. These were not crimes; they were “passes.” Steinem revealed herself as a combination John and Bobby Kennedy of the feminist movement: the fair-haired girl and the bare-knuckle fixer. The widespread liberal response to the sex-crime accusations against Bill Clinton found their natural consequence 20 years later in the behavior of Harvey Weinstein: Stay loudly and publicly and extravagantly on the side of signal leftist causes and you can do what you want in the privacy of your offices and hotel rooms.

Although conservative Christian men were horrified by this infidelity and breaking of the command to not commit adultery, this was no problem for radical feminists in the media.

Remember this quote from feminist journalist Nina Burleigh?

She wrote this in The Observer, at the height of the Clinton sexual assault / rape scandals:

At the corner CVS drugstore, inside a fresh stack of Mirabella magazines, there lies an essay I wrote about sex, power and playing cards with Bill Clinton. I described how surprised I was to find that power is seductive, even for a feminist like me. I said I thought that the President had looked at my legs a little longer than was perfectly normal, and I described how that felt (quite flattering, actually).

Nine in the morning, Monday, July 6. Fire Island. I’m supposed to be on vacation. The phone rings. A friend is calling to tell me that Howard Kurtz, Washington Post media critic and best-selling author, has written about me under the headline “A Reporter With Lust in Her Heart.”

[…]When he called back, I decided my only defense would be to give him a quote that would knock his socks off. I also wanted to test the Post ‘s new “sizzle”-the paper’s post-We Broke the Lewinsky Story advertising hook. So when Howard asked whether I could still objectively cover the President, having found him so attractive, I replied, “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

That’s exactly right. That’s what feminism is really about.

Feminism isn’t about defending women’s equality before the law, or protecting them from rape on campus and sexual harassment in the workplace. Feminism isn’t about defending women’s equal rights in Muslim countries, like the right to an education, or the right to drive a car, or the right not to be assaulted. Feminism isn’t about anything like that.

Feminism is about government-provided abortion on demand. It doesn’t matter if Bill Clinton raped and sexually harassed women. Those victims aren’t to be believed. Those victims of Bill Clinton had to be denounced as sluts, bimbos and tramps – by feminists. The most important goal of feminism is freeing women up to pursue irresponsible sex with hot bad boys, by allowing them to have free contraceptives, and free abortion on demand. That’s what feminism is really about.

Polemics

If you could rescue EITHER embryos OR a 5-year-old, what would you do?

7 Comments
I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this study
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this message

I overheard Ben Shapiro talking about some pro-abortion tweet that went viral on Twitter. Basically, the snarky pro-abortion person tried to make the case that unborn children don’t deserve legal protections because people have a moral intuition to save a 5-year-old instead of an embryo, if they can only choose one. The best response to this dilemma comes from Robert George, professor at Princeton University and Christopher Tollefsen.

Their article was posted at The Public Discourse.

Excerpt:

We agree that considering the case as described by Sandel, most people in Jones’s circumstances would choose to rescue the girl. However, this by no means shows that human embryos are not human beings or that they may be deliberately killed to produce stem cells, or in an abortion.

The first thing to notice is that the case as described is not, in fact, analogous to the suggestion that we should perform embryo-destructive research for the benefits it might provide us, or to the suggestion that it is permissible to abort an unborn human being. In both such cases, we are being invited to kill, or authorize the killing of, human embryos or fetuses in order to provide benefits to others. But in the fire scenario, there is no killing; the deaths of the embryos who are lost when Jones opts to save the girl are not killings—no one is acting to destroy the embryos or cause their deaths—but rather are the kind of death we accept as side effects in various cases in which, for example, acting to save one or some persons means that we are unable to save another or others.

Second, there are differences between the embryos and the five-year-old girl that are or can be morally relevant to the decision concerning whom to rescue. For example, the five-year-old will suffer great terror and pain in the fire, but the embryos will not. Moreover, the family of the five-year-old presumably loves her and has developed bonds of attachment and affection with her that will mean much greater grief in the event of her death than in the event of the death of the embryos. While these concerns would not justify killing, they can play a legitimate role in determining how we may allocate scarce resources and, in some cases, whom we may or should rescue. Often, the (or at least a) morally correct decision cannot be made just on the numbers—a point that even utilitarians are willing to acknowledge. And so, for example, it is morally relevant in some cases where choices of whom to rescue must be made that a person we could save is (for example) our own son or daughter, even if saving him or her means that we cannot save, say, three of our neighbors’ children who end up perishing in the fire from which we saved our own child.

The analogy, like Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violin analogy, completely ignores the fact that in a pregnancy, the baby is created as a result of the decisions of the mother and the father of the baby. This is not some stranger, this is their child. And in the case of abortion, it’s not being done to save a 5-year-old. I once heard of a case where a woman killed her unborn child so she wouldn’t look fat on the beach, during her vacation. Hardly a morally sufficient reason.

I really liked this:

The possibility that resources might be used and even, perhaps, lives risked to save the frozen embryos calls to mind the story with which we began our book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. In 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a police crew in New Orleans did save a canister of fourteen hundred human embryos from a hospital. Our book began with Noah, one of those embryos, who sixteen months later emerged, via Caesarean section, into the light of the world and his parents’ love. But if those officers had never made it to Noah’s hospital, or if they had abandoned those canisters of liquid nitrogen, the toll of Katrina would have been fourteen hundred human beings higher than it already was, and Noah, sadly, would have perished before having the opportunity to meet his loving family.

The harm of abortion is exactly like the harm of murder in general… each act deprives a person of all of their future. And this against the victim’s will, and without adequate moral justification.

An embryo has a unique genetic signature different from his mother, different from his father. He is a different person, and, if given shelter and food, he will grow up just like any of us do. Is it such a terrible thing to give food and shelter to another human being, that was created as a direct result of the choices of grown-ups? We don’t get to resort to murder of others just in order to make our own lives easier, do we?

News

Twitter censors Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn’s Senate campaign ad

2 Comments
A conservative lady is running for Senate in Tennessee
A conservative lady is running for Senate in Tennessee

Tennessee has two of the least conservative Republican senators, namely, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander. One of my absolute favorite members of the House of Representatives, Marsha Blackburn, is running for Corker’s seat in 2018. I have written about her on this blog many times. Twitter decided to censor a pro-life announcement from her Senate campaign account.

Here’s the story from the Washington Free Beacon:

Twitter has blocked Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s (Tenn.) Senate campaign announcement ad, ruling that a pro-life statement was “inflammatory.”

At one point in the video, Blackburn, who announced last week that she is running for the Senate in Tennessee, heralded how she “stopped the sale of baby body parts,” a reference to her investigation into Planned Parenthood’s reported practice of “donating” body parts in return for monetary compensation.

But a Twitter representative told the Blackburn campaign that Twitter blocked the ad from being promoted, calling it “an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction,” the Associated Press reported Monday. Twitter said that Blackburn would have to repost the video without the flagged statement in order to advertise.

Instead, Blackburn—who is vying to replace Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), who will not seek another term—tweeted out a call to action on Facebook and Twitter, asking her followers to share the video themselves.

“Twitter shut down our announcement video ad, claiming it was ‘inflammatory’ & ‘negative.’ Silicon Valley should not be allowed to impose their values on us,” she wrote on Facebook. “Join me in standing up to the liberal elite.”

Here’s the video that was censored:

Marsha Blackburn has an 88% conservative rating from the Heritage Foundation. I’ve not found a better way to assess political candidates than the Heritage Foundation’s Scorecards.

I took a quick look at the Twitter CEO’s account (@Jack) and found it littered with sophomoric left-wing propaganda, including support for anti-American millionaire Colin Kaepernick. Obviously “Jack” is in favor of left-wing free speech, just not free speech for those he disagrees with. This is standard for the close-minded, intolerant bigots on the left, though. Nothing surprising, people on the left like Jack just don’t handle different points of view very well.

More about Blackburn from Life News, for those who don’t know her record:

The Tennessee Republican has established herself as a champion for the rights of unborn babies. The eight-term congresswoman has a 100-percent pro-life voting record.

Most recently, she chaired the U.S. House Select Panel on Infant Lives, which investigated Planned Parenthood’s sales of aborted baby body parts. In January, the committee sent numerous criminal and regulatory referrals to federal and state officials regarding Planned Parenthood and other groups involved in the baby body parts trade.

More than anyone, Blackburn has distinguished herself as a pro-lifer who is willing to investigate Big Abortion corporations.

I thought to myself, where is all this censorship of pro-life views coming from? Well, it turns out that this person who works in communications at Twitter is the former press secretary for Kalama Harris. You remember Kamala Harris is the attorney general of California, who collaborated with Planned Parenthood to go after the Center for Medical Progress.

The Washington Times explains:

Officials from California Attorney General Kamala Harris‘ office and Planned Parenthood collaborated to draft legislation targeting the pro-life activist whose undercover videos showed officials for the nation’s largest abortion provider discussing the sale of fetal body parts, emails show.

The emails depict conversations between the state agency and Planned Parenthood over AB 1671, which would amend the penal code to make secretly recording and disseminating communications with health care providers a crime. Gov. Jerry Brown has until the end of the month to sign or veto the bill.

AB 1671 is a response to the Center for Medical Progress’ undercover video series spearheaded by David Daleiden.

The documents are another indication of Ms. Harris‘ close relationship with Planned Parenthood and call into question the impartiality of her ongoing investigation of Mr. Daleiden, legal experts said.

[…]Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor of jurisprudence at Chapman University, said the emails show Ms. Harris is a “tool of Planned Parenthood.” He said it is not uncommon for the attorney general to play a role in the legislative process, but added that Ms. Harris in this case was “working with Planned Parenthood to protect it from criminal prosecution.”

Now, it’s well known that companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have serious problems at the top with censorship of diverse views. In these companies, they all think the same, and they hire people who think the same, and they fire people who don’t think the same. Instead of fixing the problem, they keep right on going with their progressive cultural imperialism. If you’re looking for “corporate fascism”, you don’t need to look any further than Google, Facebook and Twitter. Zero ideological diversity. Dangerous censorship of opposing views.

If the federal government is looking for a good place to crack down on corporate fascism, I think breaking up Google, Facebook and Twitter into smaller companies would be a good start. In fact, moderate Republican Hugh Hewitt recently suggested this to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy on his MSNBC show. By all means, and we should de-fund fascist universities that don’t allow both sides of debates to be heard.

I don’t often ask my readers for favors, but if you can please share this post on social media, I would be grateful. Marsha Blackburn is one of the good ones, and I’d like to see her win the race to become senator in Tennessee. I’m sick of seeing conservative legislation derailed by the likes of Corker and Alexander.

Related posts