Live Action founder: Allow me to introduce you to “the anti-abortion feminist”

posted at 10:30 am on April 3, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Lila Rose is the founder of Live Action, a pro-life group that utilizes new media and investigative journalism to expose attacks on human life. She’s out today with an op-ed in Politico, “Battle Hymn of the Anti-Abortion Feminist.” I hope you’ll read the whole piece. In it, Rose introduces audiences to what she calls “the anti-abortion feminist,” a type of woman with which I hope you’re familiar if for no other reason than that I write for this site. I’ve never liked the term “feminist,” but Rose reclaims it for women like me:

We are women for whom the idea of artificial birth control as “preventive care” is deeply insulting.

We are women who view the intentional killing of children not as a constitutional right, a matter of privacy or a necessary evil but, rather, as profoundly anti-woman and the antithesis of love.

We are women whose lives contradict the idea of an inevitable clash between religious liberty and women’s health. We are women who believe that something precious is lost when fertility is intentionally excluded from marriage, a sacred bond and a total giving of each spouse to the other.

We are women who believe that sex and pregnancy aren’t just health issues; they are also inextricably linked with family, morals, faith and values. And we are women who love everything about being a woman, including being mothers. We have noticed that the rise in the availability and use of cheap birth control coincided with increases in the rates of sex addiction, divorce, unmarried childbearing and abortion.

We have also noticed that while contraceptives and legal abortion promised to eliminate the exploitative attitude of men toward women, they have had the opposite effect.

We don’t wish to take the country back in time; rather, we aspire to move it forward, beyond a time when women are treated as objects and pitted against their children and their religious institutions — and toward a time when truly emancipated women embrace their intrinsic dignity and, with it, their authentic womanhood.

Rose writes that we are “transforming” what it means to be a woman, but I’d argue that we’re reviving it. Our ideas are deeply radical, but in its true etymological sense; they go back to the root, to the very beginning.

While I still cringe at the term “feminist,” Rose is right to use it, as it conjures with it the idea of freedom of choice. Feminism is supposed to be about that freedom, but modern feminism actually deprives women of it, dictating what their choices should be and/or obscuring the real choices before them. Treating fertility as a disease and teaching that a human fetus is not a human person are the most obvious examples of the way feminism does that. Treating fertility as a disease suggests that what is innately and uniquely female — the ability to literally give birth to the next generation — is somehow shameful. Teaching that a human fetus is not a human person obscures a pregnant mother’s legitimate choices. By the time a woman is pregnant, she doesn’t have the choice to not be a mother. She has just one choice to make: What kind of mother will she be?

The pro-life feminist would say that what is innately and uniquely female is awesome, worthy of respect. Yes, our capacity to be mothers must be used wisely, but it must not be denied.

My thanks to Rose for an anthem that made me feel wonderfully less alone.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

As a young child I recall my mother calling herself a feminist on various ocassions… and she was and is a conservative (bordering on fundy) and just as much pro-life then as now.

Of course, she was also a “no-body”, so her ideas on feminism didn’t matter… and being in a very conservative community, she ruffled no feathers except her parent’s!

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 10:34 AM

God Bless Mothers.

OkieDoc on April 3, 2012 at 10:34 AM

This column will bring out the best in Politico’s liberal audience.

novaculus on April 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Agreed with this post, right down to my distaste for “feminism” as a term and ideology. I’m still skeptical of conservative efforts to co-opt “feminism” successfully without bringing along its negative traits rooted in forty years of militant left-wing ideology…

Better just to stick to basic conservative principles, solidly rooted in natural law and therefore inherently greater than any differences between the sexes. That is essentially what Rose does here, whatever label she wants to add onto it.

Gingotts on April 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

not surprised tina didn’t mention the most iconic of all anti-abortion feminists….Sarah Palin…..walking the walk and talking the talk.

When will y’all learn. No Palin, No Peace

renalin on April 3, 2012 at 10:39 AM

While I still cringe at the term “feminist,”

Hardly should…just define it the way it was meant to be.
That women are capable of many things…the most important of making their own decisions.
It may be to be a mother, or housewife, or an executive, plumber, pilot…that is really the whole issue of “feminism”, to be out of the “cast” system.
Rather than “cringe”, embrace and make sure the definition is accurate.

Nothing is worse than some group trying to co-opt another groups words, twisting them, and calling them their own.

Stand up to them, and make sure that “feminism” by some groups is just a liberal activist front…but to many it’s the freedom from breaking the bonds of women not having rights for centuries.

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 10:39 AM

The biggest beneficiaries of “feminism” are male bums who enjoy all of the benefits of “free love” without any of the obligations.

Suckers.

NoDonkey on April 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM

VA beat her to it.
The state allows rape now legally.

Good people of all political backgrounds know rape is wrong whether done by an attacker or the government.

In the words of PA governor Tom Corbett.

“just close your eyes”

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

By the time a woman is pregnant, she doesn’t have the choice to not be a mother. She has just one choice to make: What kind of mother will she be?

Truly profound.

CDeb on April 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM

We have noticed that the rise in the availability and use of cheap birth control coincided with increases in the rates of sex addiction, divorce, unmarried childbearing and abortion.

The exact thing slutty Sandra Fluke was demanded the Catholic church pay for her birth control. For Ms. Fluke, it wasn’t about motherhood it was all about being able to have sex whenever and wherever she desired.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I’m still skeptical of conservative efforts to co-opt “feminism” successfully without bringing along its negative traits rooted in forty years of militant left-wing ideology…

Well said. Conservatives can co-opt the concept of feminism just as easy as they’ll take back the concept of liberalism.

Just leave it alone and move on. Too much baggage on both.

mintycrys on April 3, 2012 at 10:46 AM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Do you know what rape actually is or have you just heard it discussed in your little sewing circle?

NoDonkey on April 3, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Feminism should never = abortion. Feminism should be about women and celebrating and respecting the contributions we make.

magicbeans on April 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Lila Rose is a misogynist and an arborist.

Bishop on April 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

VA beat her to it.
The state allows rape now legally.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Virginia is one of 24 states that have some type of requirement that a woman be offered a view of an ultrasound before an abortion can be performed. Virginia will become the eighth state to require medical providers to administer ultrasounds on women before performing abortions.

Why the rush to kill off life? I would think even you liberal women would spend at least as much time contemplating the murder you are considering as you did in the backseat of some dude’s car on a random Saturday night after the bar closed.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 10:51 AM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Ah yes, that meme.

Keep beating that dead horse that your national compatriots have hauled away and are trying to forget.

From Plannned Parenthood.

There are two ways to do an ultrasound — through the abdomen or through the vagina. Ultrasounds may be performed by your health care provider or by a trained ultrasound technician.

During a vaginal ultrasound, your provider will insert the ultrasound wand into the vagina. This may feel similar to a vaginal exam. You may feel pressure during the exam, but it is not painful.

So, was/is Planned Parenthood doing something illegal and/or “raping” their clients? The women don’t have to go to PP. They don’t have to accept getting an ultrasound.

The meme falls flat, but keep pounding it. Maybe you’ll make something spontaneously exist…

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Having lived through the “feminist” movement of the 70′s and watched the “movement” morph into another special interest group, over the past few decades, demanding special treatment or laws when public sentiment did not support them, what I can say about the article, is “spot on.”

The “movement” never made sense – a number of women were denied access to a number of jobs b/c they were women, but “necessity is the mother of invention” and the US society changed from a manual environment to an information environment in the mid-1970′s. This environment shift is the REAL reason women made the strides they did. ANd of course, women stepped up to fill the need.

Unfortunately, women also made “strides” in other areas. Someone needs to do research on what percentage of women went from not wanting a husband (or children) to prove their independence only to pursue and get jobs that were guaranteed safe: government and education.

Yet, there are the stellar examples of women in business who have succeeded enormously. But we have also raised at least one generation of young women (and men) to believe that “I” don’t need anyone else. Women’s’ studies’ programs are a waste of money and only continue the mantra that “life for women isn’t fair” – get over it. Life isn’t fair.

Obviously I could write a lot more but I’ll stop – Lila Rose’s article is accurate, period. Thank you.

MN J on April 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Feminism should be about women and celebrating and respecting the contributions we make.

magicbeans on April 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

In other words, women should “man up” and do the right thing! :0

Seriously, a woman’s contribution to society was far more celebrated and respected before the so-called feminists insisted that there was no difference between men and women.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM

We have noticed that the rise in the availability and use of cheap birth control coincided with increases in the rates of sex addiction, divorce, unmarried childbearing and abortion.

Also coincidental to increases in the rates of “sex addiction, divorce, unmarried childbearing and abortion” (and don’t forget STDs) was the demise of respect for chastity and contempt for sluttiness, defined as multiple sex partners out of wedlock. In other words, the sexual “freedom” agenda of the Steinem school of feminism.

novaculus on April 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

liberal4life – keep beating that dead horse of a meme.

So, is/was Planned Parenthood doing something illegal or raping their clients? Whether the law existed or not, PP was/is going to use the i.v. ultrasound method when they feel it necessary.

From their own site:

There are two ways to do an ultrasound — through the abdomen or through the v.. Ultrasounds may be performed by your health care provider or by a trained ultrasound technician.

During a v. ultrasound, your provider will insert the ultrasound wand into the v.. This may feel similar to a v. exam. You may feel pressure during the exam, but it is not painful.

I’ve had to abbreviate a word so it will get past the censoring setting.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Liberal feminists are so blind. They believe feminism means there is no difference between men and women. Then they ask for the government to bestow free birth control pills and free abortion upon them. I have never known a man to use birth control pills or have an abortion. So, why do people who are equal in every way to man need these things?

Only in the retarded liberal mind….

NOMOBO on April 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

VA beat her to it.
The state allows rape now legally.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Please explain how an ultrasound is equivalent to rape. Are you telling us ALL ultrasounds are rape, or just those before abortions?

NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

When I hear the word feminist, I walk away. That word has gotten more women in trouble than helped.

upinak on April 3, 2012 at 10:57 AM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Regularly rapes common sense.

novaculus on April 3, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Hey lib4life. Since PP says that an i.v. ultrasound may feel a lot like a standard v. exam, does that mean that ob/gyn’s and specifically PP have been raping their clients all along?

Enquiring minds want to know?

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 10:58 AM

The state allows rape now legally.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Talking point #1,247. She doesn’t know what it means, but she was told to say it. Next up will be the standard “isn’t it awful that an organization made up of unmarried men can pass laws about how women have to live their lives. And yes, I’m talking about the Catholic Church” rant. It’s getting really old and I hope they give this intellectually challenged troll slime something new to say soon, just for the sake of variety.

Trafalgar on April 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Please explain how an ultrasound is equivalent to rape. Are you telling us ALL ultrasounds are rape, or just those before abortions?

NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Yes, ultrasound is rape. When the ultrasound tech gobbed a bit of that conductive jelly on my wife’s stomach and then moved an imaging wand around it….just like rape. And I just sat there and did nothing.

Bishop on April 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM

VA beat her to it.
The state allows rape now legally.

Good people of all political backgrounds know rape is wrong whether done by an attacker or the government.

In the words of PA governor Tom Corbett.

“just close your eyes”

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

You are such a liar. I have had the internal ultrasound that you are comparing to rape. It was so awesome to see my little Sophie up on the screen when I was only four weeks pregnant. And it proved to me that she was NO a “clump of cells.” I think that’s what you are afraid of. Science can let you see for yourself what you are about to abort. And you don’t want women to have all the information. They might not make the choie you want them to make.

How incredibly irresponsible of you to compare a medical procedure to rape? For your own selfish political gain you deminish the violent experience of rape? Wasn’t it fellow leftist Whoopie Goldberg who said it wasn’t “rape, rape” when a thirteen yr old girl is given drugs and alcohol by a Roman Polanski and vaginally and anally raped? Because he’s a great director or something… Now the left has decided that anytime your OBGYN inserts something into your vagina you are being raped?

BTW that internal sonogram has always happened before you have an abortion. So Planned Parenthood has been “raping” women for years. And after that they use a spacula to open the vagina and metal rods are inserted to open the cervix. Is that all rape too?

You are just completely dishonest.

magicbeans on April 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM

The state allows rape now legally.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I felt so violated when I had that cardiac ultrasound a couple years ago. Now I know why.

Thank you liberal4life for clearing up this emotional rollercoaster I have been on since that cardiac ultrasound. Next thing you know, they’re going to want to do an angiogram. I will steel myself.

/sarc

NOMOBO on April 3, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Bishop on April 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM

You’re just a fetishist; admit it! ;)

And, we got a pay off for sitting there and watching the tech “rape” our wives.

Seeing our unborn children.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Feminism started with the sufragettes. Women had to fight for the right to vote. They had to fight to own property and they had to fight to not be legally beaten by their husbands.

But the sexual revolution of the 1960′s has had terrible results for the family and even for women. So in that I agree. But it wasn’t all roses before feminism.

magicbeans on April 3, 2012 at 11:07 AM

All feminism has done is told women they need to act like men. And guess what? It doesn’t make women happy. But it makes men VERY happy.

rockmom on April 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Feminism, like conservatism, has a definition. Being pro-life is anti-thetical to the definition of feminism.

libfreeordie on April 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM

…Good people of all political backgrounds know rape is wrong whether done by an attacker or the government.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

You mean like Obamacare, ‘stimulus’ spending, Cash For Clunkers, Auto bailouts or loans to Solyndra, etc.? Like that government rape?

ghostwalker1 on April 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM

This column will bring out the best in Politico’s liberal audience.

novaculus on April 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I predict Amanda Marcotte will take shrill to a whole new level in response.

T.D.D. on April 3, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Feminism had some noble goals until it go hijacked by radicals who insisted that it meant men and women are somehow precisely the same (we are distinctly different as should be obvious to anyone). From then on it was downhill into abortion worship, wymyns studies, bra-burning, Gloria Steinem, crack-babies, MSNBC etc.

It’s a familiar story. A great idea until radical leftists got ahold of it and perverted it beyond all recognition.

CorporatePiggy on April 3, 2012 at 11:16 AM

But it wasn’t all roses before feminism.

magicbeans on April 3, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Point taken but I don’t consider the suffrage movement as part of what we refer to as feminism. Feminism goes far beyond fairness in law or society to the point where we end up with the mentality of the left where it is okay to kill off a child if inconvenient to the mother. Feminism does not empower women, it makes them genderless vessels.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM

libfreeordie on April 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM

And gay used to mean happy.

Sometimes definitions change, for good or ill, for one reason or another, as a co-opt or generational/cultural shift.

It’s time conservatives retake the definition of feminism if according to liberals it can only be defined one way.

By the by, it’s not uncommon for a word to have multiple definitions, sometimes incongruent with the others.

So, try again.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM

VA beat her to it.
The state allows rape now legally.

Good people of all political backgrounds know rape is wrong whether done by an attacker or the government.

In the words of PA governor Tom Corbett.

“just close your eyes”

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Nope, still no badge for you. Dumb@zz.

HumpBot Salvation on April 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM

In another study, relational stability produced positive emotional effects while promiscuity had negative impacts to happiness and well-being. This is true for men and women, but more pronounced for women.

From the NY Times article about

Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America.” Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression.

STL_Vet on April 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Then they ask for the government to bestow free birth control pills and free abortion upon them.

NOMOBO on April 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Isn’t the birth control provided as part of a compensation plan? The government shouldn’t dictate that employees have to take comp in the form of health care. However, when they do isn’t it reasonable for employees to want their specific m3ds covered as part of the plan they are forced to pay into?

OptionsTrader on April 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

What’s it like being used?

CurtZHP on April 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Feminism, like conservatism, has a definition. Being pro-life is anti-thetical to the definition of feminism.

libfreeordie on April 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM

fem·i·nism
noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
Definition of FEMINISM
1
: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

Yep, right there in black and white. By the way genius, neither pro life nor the word antithetical are hyphenated. On the other hand, your existence is a powerful argument for abortion.

ghostwalker1 on April 3, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Feminism, like conservatism, has a definition. Being pro-life is anti-thetical to the definition of feminism.

libfreeordie on April 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM

So you are saying you can’t be “pro-life”, that you can’t be for life of a baby and be a feminist?
I get the “support abortion”, don’t agree but I get it, but not be for life…I have never heard that one.
Most feminists would say pro-choice, which would include pro-life…how weird that you think that feminists only want to destroy life.
You might want to revise your definition…or seek help.

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 11:23 AM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Please never stray from your approved talking points, lib. Otherwise people might come to the conclusion that you can think for yourself and might even begin to take you seriously.

So long as you continue to minimize the hurt and loss experienced by rape victims you show everyone what you are.

Esthier on April 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Most feminists would say pro-choice, which would include pro-life…how weird that you think that feminists only want to destroy life.
You might want to revise your definition…or seek help.

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 11:23 AM

You are dead wrong. Pro-choice is to respecting life what Planned Parenthood is to “family planning.”

The fact of the matter is that anybody who declares that they are pro-choice is really saying that they support abortion. There is no choice involved other than the “right” to kill off the life of a child.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM

ghostwalker1 on April 3, 2012 at 11:22 AM

But you see, you weren’t using lib’s dictionary. You found a dictionary but obviously it wasn’t the correct one because it didn’t agree with lib’s definition. Lib uses the Moral Relativity Dictionary, 1 trillionth edition.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM

However, when they do isn’t it reasonable for employees to want their specific m3ds covered as part of the plan they are forced to pay into?

OptionsTrader on April 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Religious freedom isn’t freedom at all unless that freedom can be practiced. When the government dictates a practice to the church and its institutions, which is against it established doctrine, it eviscerates the meaning of freedom.

The WH is arguing that their bureaucratic mandate can topple a constitutional right of practice. They will get spanked again, if the whole Obamacare doesn’t get taken down before this case makes it to the supremes.

STL_Vet on April 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Yep, right there in black and white. By the way genius, neither pro life nor the word antithetical are hyphenated. On the other hand, your existence is a powerful argument for abortion.

ghostwalker1 on April 3, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Grammar police belong in Readers Digest…not on a blog where Ideas trump your “grammar”…btw, Strunk and White say that hyphens are used in pro-xxxx, until it becomes a common word (which it is) and at that time it is then the two words become one.
So originally pro-life was correct, but now that it is common usage pro-life would not be (but still acceptable, particularly in the UK, and seeing as we are “international”…)…the exception would be if the “second” word begins and ends in the same vowel…see how tedious it becomes?

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Argh!

Strunk and White!

How I loathed that book…

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 11:34 AM

The fact of the matter is that anybody who declares that they are pro-choice is really saying that they support abortion. There is no choice involved other than the “right” to kill off the life of a child.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM

You are arguing the wrong point…one can say they are “prochoice”, and support abortion, but still support someone who wants to keep the baby…supporting abortion, is not exclusively aborting every baby.

I am anti-abortion, so calm down turbo…not all people are one way or the other…some struggle with the concept, and attacking people who are trying to make it more clear is typical of an extremist that drives the other side away.

Some people want every baby destroyed…and some want every baby to be born…and many want to weigh each decision as to other factors.

Pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life (with or without hypens)…all have different meanings to different people.

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM

VA beat her to it.
The state allows rape now legally.

Good people of all political backgrounds know rape is wrong whether done by an attacker or the government.

In the words of PA governor Tom Corbett.

“just close your eyes”

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

…lie, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat…
You are dumber than Fluke!

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Strunk and White!

How I loathed that book…

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 11:34 AM

And how I loathe grammar police…it is so obnoxious to try to defeat an idea by pointing out grammatical errors.

I am pro-conservative…obviously not since you added a hyphen…

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM

The WH is arguing that their bureaucratic mandate can topple a constitutional right of practice. They will get spanked again, if the whole Obamacare doesn’t get taken down before this case makes it to the supremes.

STL_Vet on April 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM

That’s a different issue than the one I was raising, which was that it is rational for women to want contraceptives covered if they are forced by the government to take part of their compensation in the form of health care. Better to let employers and employees negotiate comp w/o the gov.

The First Amendment question has been challenged by the RCC in NY and CA. They lost in state court and SCOTUS denied the appeals. In both states there are exemptions for religious institutions. Hospitals aren’t considered religious institutions regardless of the owner.

OptionsTrader on April 3, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I am anti-abortion, so calm down turbo…not all people are one way or the other…some struggle with the concept, and attacking people who are trying to make it more clear is typical of an extremist that drives the other side away.

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM

When it comes to protecting unborn life, I’m happy with your label of “extremist.” What’s the alternative? Doing what Barak Obama supported and making it illegal to provide medical care to a child who was the product of a botched abortion? Again, it isn’t pro-choice it is pro-murder whether or not other alternatives are considered. There are times when a child has to be aborted for medical or other reasons but that is not the same thing as killing off a child because of inconvenience.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Wow. Sorry I blew up.

ghostwalker1 on April 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM

VA beat her to it.
The state allows rape now legally.

Good people of all political backgrounds know rape is wrong whether done by an attacker or the government.

In the words of PA governor Tom Corbett.

“just close your eyes”

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

How strange that you would equate an accepted medical practice with rape. So tell me, does someone drag these women in off the street and tie them down for the purpose of performing an ultrasound? Do you suppose they consider themselves “raped” when they get pap smears or undergo colposcopy, or other common gynecological procedures?

No, the truth is they agree to the ultrasound so that they can take the next step…aborting their babies. With an ultrasound, everyone, including the mother, the doctor, hospital officials, etc., can be confident that they are not violating the law by inadvertently aborting a late term baby. And, of course the mother does have other choices. She can choose not to become pregnant in the first place, or she can choose to have the baby and keep it or give it up for adoption. Lots of choices there. Plenty of ways to avoid what you so oddly call “rape.”

Dee2008 on April 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Sure, it’s reasonable for employees to want whatever they want. But that doesn’t mean that the government should require anyone to give employees whatever they want.

blink on April 3, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Oh! I think if religious institutions are forced to commit sins at the government’s edict, those getting free contraception should be forced to itemize the use of such products as declared income down to the individual pill or condom. Call it the Fluke law.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Do you know what rape actually is or have you just heard it discussed in your little sewing circle?

NoDonkey on April 3, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Yeah, rape is when a man forcefully does nasty things to a womans body – they’re usually called abortionists.

(Don’t tell me she want’s it -the 51% of females killed were never asked!)

Don L on April 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I’ve always judged contraceptives as a get out of jail free card in the game of life and it’s natural conclusion is that a person would have a more cavalier attitude toward sexual behaviors.
I wonder if we’ve strayed too far to anoint our daughters with the power that comes from being the one to decide…is this person worthy of being the father of my child when deciding to have sex?
Can we turn sexuality back over to the parents to teach?
Didn’t we lose something precious when government took that over and hasn’t it changed our culture and not for the better?
I don’t want to make the choice for other…not even mown daughters but, I was the one to educated them about their power and miracle giving gift that they should cherish.
Sure sex is wonderful and the left will make all their typical arguments that we on the right are all prudes and want to return to the attitudes of the 50s ( and that one may be true…and who could blame us when you compare the two in history)and anyone who falls into that trap will lose but, reminding women of the power of true feminism is a wonderful thing.

rebekahhuang on April 3, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Nobody is forced to accept any compensation. If an employee doesn’t like the amount or type of compensation that a job provides then they can find another job.

blink on April 3, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Under ObamaCare they will be forced, in the majority of the job market, to accept a pct of their comp as health insurance. One problem with ObamaCare is that it turns what should be employer-employee negotiated comp questions into a legislative project.

OptionsTrader on April 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM

OptionsTrader on April 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM

By mandating that health insurers cover a specific med with no copay, in effect the government is bestowing that med for free. At that point it has nothing to do with their compensation plan–it is a government mandate. It cannot be negotiated into or out of the compensation plan.

NOMOBO on April 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Feminism, like conservatism, has a definition. Being pro-life is anti-thetical to the definition of feminism.

libfreeordie on April 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Originally, feminism stemmed from the abolitionist movement, and it started in England. There, women wanted the right to vote, and they were jailed and forced-fed through their noses because of their poltical action.

One feminist leader in England (I don’t remember which one) insisted that women wear their fancy dresses at rallies. Why? Because these women wanted the right to vote–as women. They shouldn’t have to dress like men and pretend to be men in order to vote.

Liberalism is what perverted the original intent of feminism. Hate to break it to you, buddy, but feminism and motherhood are in sync with each other.

Your preverted view of feminism is that women pretend to be men and that being female–or feminine–is somehow weak. Somehow, stripping, abortion, and promiscuity are supposed to be empowering to women.

You know what’s an example of a woman’s strength? The ending of Terms of Endearment. The scene where the child was outright angry at his mother, who was on her deathbed. No matter what the child did, the mother said that it was ok that he was angry and wanted to comfort him as she was dying. It was the epitome of the silent strength of motherhood and true feminism.

By the way, you liberal feminists disgust me.

Kyle_Reese on April 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

The biggest beneficiaries of “feminism” are male bums who enjoy all of the benefits of “free love” without any of the obligations.

Suckers.

NoDonkey on April 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Males certainly do not benefit from the evil fruits of feminism. Feminism is responsible for the anti-male attitude rampant throughout our land. These would include but are not limited to: unfair divorce laws and child custody case decisions which greatly favor women, affirmative action, lesser punishments for women who commit identical crimes as men, a slew of false rape allegations which often result in minor repercussions for the woman etc.

Me also have: 4 times the suicide rate as women, 4 times the homicide rate, 13 times more likely to be killed on the job, work %11 higher hours a week, 16% less likely to attend college, 13 times more likely to be incarcerated, men make up %90 of the homeless, and account for %99.9 of all military deaths.

And yet after all this, women still get the lions share of all government aid and federally funded health research (don’t even get me started on the difference between breast cancer funding and prostate cancer funding). If women want true equality, then society needs to stop treating men like disposable commodities.

NeverLiberal on April 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

There, women wanted the right to vote, and they were jailed and forced-fed through their noses because of their poltical action.

Kyle_Reese on April 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Forgot to mention: The women in jail were forced-fed because they were on hunger strikes. It certainly wasn’t the first choice for the police.

Kyle_Reese on April 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM

No, they won’t. Nobody is forced to work any job.

blink on April 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM

With the government mandate throughout the marketplace it comes closer to “every” rather than “any”. In practice people will be forced into dealing with the mandate either as employee or employer.

OptionsTrader on April 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Regularly rapes common sense.

novaculus on April 3, 2012 at 10:57 AM

He/she sure as heck has demonstrated an inability to carry on a normal and healthy relationship with common sense. And angry retards will destroy what they can’t possess.

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

The biggest beneficiaries of “feminism” are male bums who enjoy all of the benefits of “free love” without any of the obligations.

Suckers.

NoDonkey on April 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM

And the biggest losers are men with an ounce of responsibility!

I’ve never fathered a child outside of wedlock and left the mother & child to go on welfare. I haven’t personally been stripped of house, car, and bank account by some vow-breaking trollop. I haven’t contracted an incurable STD from screwing around and died a charity case in a hospital. But my taxes pay for all those who do.

It’s already hit me personally. I mentioned to my parents that I’d ask my future fiance to sign a pre-nup. They did not like the idea, but tough cookies for them. It’s a grim reality that if, God forbid, I get taken to divorce court without having one, I will be treated like a walking ATM.

MelonCollie on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

There, women wanted the right to vote, and they were jailed and forced-fed through their noses because of their poltical action.

Kyle_Reese on April 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Forgot to mention: The women in jail were forced-fed because they were on hunger strikes. It certainly wasn’t the first choice for the police.

Kyle_Reese on April 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Who cares whether it was their first choice or second choice? The police had no right. Evil.

The right to life has to include the right to control the length of one’s life and not have it controlled by others, if it’s to mean anything. They had every moral right to risk or give their lives in a cause they agreed with. But no, the power of the state and of the life tyrants had to intervene.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

A good point to bring up whenever the usual suspects start up that “Amurricuh needs to have moar babies!!!”. As if we can outbreed the entire welfare contingent in the first place…

Another poster put it quite brilliantly: we don’t need more babies, we need more freedom! Every right-wing and centrist family could breed their own baseball team, but if the leftist loons sill have a stranglehold on the courts, the schools, and society in general, it won’t mean a darn.

MelonCollie on April 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

MelonCollie on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

In my estimation, if you’re considering a prenup, you’re already dooming your marraige before you’ve even got someone to marry.

If you go into a marraige with the thought that it can end in divorce, it probably will.

Marraige is a union and meant to last the lifetime of one/both individuals entering into it. If divorce is in your peripheral vision as a future possibility if things aren’t working out the way you both had assumed and hoped it would, maybe you shouldn’t get married in the first place.

Too many people enter into marraige with rose colored glasses, giving zero thought as to what marraige truly is all about. Instead it’s just seen as a “necessary” cultural and civil thing to do but just temporary.

If you think that you’re going to be treated like a walking ATM, maybe you’re looking at the wrong kind of people to connect with.

I’ve been married nearly seven years now. I have four kids and to be sure, there’s days I wonder what it’d be like to not be married to my wife. Pretty much most people have such thoughts about their spouse. Marraiges are not always a bed of roses. It has its ups and downs. Marraiges take work and people are fools who think everything is going to be hunky dory all the time. More so are they fools when they opt for divorce because “things just aren’t working out.” The only real, reasonable grounds one has for divorce is adultery… and if you’re not the one doing it, you shouldn’t have anything to fear from a judge.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I agree with you about more freedom, MelonCollie.

Enjoying life is wonderful, when it happens. As long as we’re not directly harming others, we should have freedom to do what we want with our lives. That includes a hunger strike in favor of a political goal we have. Others can always ignore us.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

What is the point of life without challenge? Free will is certainly a double edged sword, but when we fail to appreciate the precious gift we have been given we fail to truly live. Why are feminists who so willingly throw away life for convenience so bitter themselves?

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM

It takes a woman to stand up to the radical feminists and declare with eloquence and vigor that no, they do not speak for all women.
The men who share the same beliefs as Lila Rose are too easily dismissed and disregarded simply because they are men.

Confutus on April 3, 2012 at 1:23 PM

In my estimation, if you’re considering a prenup, you’re already dooming your marraige before you’ve even got someone to marry.

If you go into a marraige with the thought that it can end in divorce, it probably will.

What’s this — marital advice according to The Secret?

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Suicide has always been illegal. I find it curious though you use the term “life tyrants” when talking about freedom. What liberty is more precious or more important then life?

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM

By the time a woman is pregnant, she doesn’t have the choice to not be a mother. She has just one choice to make: What kind of mother will she be?

Truly profound.

CDeb on April 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I agree that Tina’s statement is truly profound. But it could also be misunderstood by some on the left, so I’d like to try to clear that up, if I may be so bold.

Some on the left may misinterpret what Tina said to imply something like:

By the time a woman is pregnant, she doesn’t have the choice to not be a mother (who raises that child). She has just one choice to make: What kind of mother will she be?

I.E., that a woman who is pregnant doesn’t have the choice of whether or not to be a mother who raises that child.

But that’s not what Tina said or meant. What she meant is that as soon as a woman becomes pregnant, she becomes a mother. What is growing in her womb is a child, and she is the mother of that child. As such, it’s not a question of a choice of becomming a mother or not… she already is one. And the question then is, what type of mother will she be to that child. Currently, our society presents really two choices to those mothers:
1) Abortion
2) Raise the child yourself

I firmly believe that our society would be healthier and happier if “choice” #1 were removed and the two choices were:
2) Raise the child yourself
3) Adoption

I know multiple people who have flown halfway around the world and paid tens of thousands of dollars to communist governments just for the privilege of adopting a child. So don’t tell me that adoption couldn’t work in this country to find homes for the children who are currently aborted.

And I think that if abortion were removed from the “choices” available, many men would change their attitudes towards women and sex. Too many men today want the unplanned pregnancy they caused to be ended in abortion, to cover up their actions. If that were not an option, and men were forced to face the truth, publicly, about what they had done, it would likely impact other men to think about the possible consequences of their actions and change their behavior. If men begin to see women as potential mothers, and not just as sex objects, I think women will be happy with the change in the men’s behavior.

ITguy on April 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM

What is the point of life without challenge [that we ultimately have to lose, forever]? Free will is certainly a double edged sword [except we don't have any], but when we fail to appreciate the precious gift [of suffering] we have been given we fail to truly live [granted]. Why are feminists who so willingly throw away life for convenience so bitter themselves? [perhaps because they get it]

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

ITguy on April 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Exactly. A person choosing to kill their own child does not change the fact they are/were a mother.

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I predict Amanda Marcotte will take shrill to a whole new level in response.

T.D.D. on April 3, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Amanda Marcotte… John Edwards’ “web mistress”… LOL.

ITguy on April 3, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Suicide has always been illegal [nonsense -- under the anti-ethical sway of Christendom, sure]. I find it curious though you use the term “life tyrants” when talking about freedom. What liberty is more precious or more important then life? [the right to die and get out of the damn misery; the right not to be tortured]

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

None of that really addresses anything. It only demonstrates the fact that you choose to wallow in self pity and moroseness. Humanity seems to carry on despite the ridiculous (and quite frankly obnoxious) claim that life is nothing but suffering. If we were truly inclined to accept such logic we would have ended it all long ago.

I assume you’re an atheist? I won’t get into a pointless argument with you about God. I know you think I and others delude ourselves about His existence. But there is, and never will be, any doubt in my mind He does exist. People who can’t seem to find God because they can’t seem to stop thinking about their own selfish desires probably do live a hopeless existence.

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM

In my estimation, that is not the case. Our divorce laws are unrighteous and to go along with them is foolish. Why would I marry a woman with the agreement that if she decides to cheat on me, not only will there be no punishment, but instead she will be rewarded with half of my stuff as well as alimony for her once she lives on her own. That is giving her enticement to be unfaithful. How is this a good contract for marriage? Why are men so stupid to agree to this? Why would any Christian allow the state to define the terms of their marriage? If I marry, I want her to sign an agreement that infidelity shall be the only grounds for divorce, and if that happens, the guilty party gets nothing, they leave the relationship with the clothes on their back. Agreeing to foolish marriage contracts is what would most likely doom a marriage, not agreeing to a good one.

NeverLiberal on April 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM

When I say always I am referring to American history. And since we are talking about freedom in the freest nation to ever exist it is relevant.

[the right to die and get out of the damn misery; the right not to be tortured]

Setting aside whether suicide should be illegal or not, at what point has an unborn child made this choice?

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 1:39 PM

NeverLiberal on April 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Prenups are a difficult question because they really do contradict the promises made before God. I can understand the desire to protect one’s self from financial ruin if a marriage fails, but isn’t the marriage doomed from the start if both do not trust each other to remain faithful to the promise they made before God?

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM

None of that really addresses anything. It only demonstrates the fact that you choose to wallow in self pity and moroseness. Humanity seems to carry on despite the ridiculous (and quite frankly obnoxious) claim that life is nothing but suffering. If we were truly inclined to accept such logic we would have ended it all long ago.

Through natural selection, we evolved delusions such as religion, belief in an afterlife, and the optimism bias; to protect our genes from this fact.

I assume you’re an atheist?

Indeed.

I won’t get into a pointless argument with you about God.

Indeed.

I know you think I and others delude ourselves about His existence.

Indeed.

But there is, and never will be, any doubt in my mind He does exist.

Indubitably.

People who can’t seem to find God because they can’t seem to stop thinking about their own selfish desires probably do live a hopeless existence.

Emphasis added.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:45 PM

What’s this — marital advice according to The Secret?

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:23 PM

I have never heard of that and from the video clip, no, nothing to do with some sort of “law of attraction.”

I’m thinking from a Biblical, Christian perspective. Period. And yes, I’m well aware that the percentages of divorce are just as high among Christians as non-Christians. Doesn’t make it right.

I have noted to my wife on a few occassions that divorce is not an option in our marraige. It’s not on the table. My best friend and his wife – who are Christians – have had a very rocky 13 years of marraige and yet divorce has never been part of their possible package either. Same goes for my mom and step-dad and interestingly my dad and step-mom, both of which have had some pretty rocky spots in their near thirty year marraiges.

Exactly who are the people pushing prenups? Lawyers? Exactly who are most of the people using prenups? Celebrities? Uber-wealthy? What’s the rate of divorce among those groups compared to the general populace?

Your prospective mate isn’t going to be perfect. Neither are you. Demand perfection with a get-out-of-jail-free card and you set yourself up for a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. But to be sure, one or both of you will have some excuses. And, you’ll have your money which is evidently more important to you than marraige.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Setting aside whether suicide should be illegal or not, at what point has an unborn child made this choice?

It hasn’t, but, having children is not the unambiguous good it is often heralded as. It is fraught with an enormous moral dilemma.

On one hand, there’s our instincts to procreate; on the other, there’s not creating a new center of suffering that will inevitably perish in the knowledge — if it’s rational and sane — that everyone and everything it has ever loved will perish also.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:49 PM

In my estimation, that is not the case. Our divorce laws are unrighteous and to go along with them is foolish. Why would I marry a woman with the agreement that if she decides to cheat on me, not only will there be no punishment, but instead she will be rewarded with half of my stuff as well as alimony for her once she lives on her own.

This.

Hey, if one is bound and determined to live, it’s good to see some clear thinking in the endeavor.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:53 PM

as well as alimony for her once she lives on her own

and is getting boned regularly by someone who is not you, don’t forget.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM

NeverLiberal on April 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Conversely she could say the same of you.

Better yet, vett your prospective mate long before serious discussions of marraige come around. If you have your doubts, then that means you don’t trust her (whether with good reason or not). If you don’t trust her, why would you marry her?

As I noted, marraige takes work. It’s a two way street and there’s a reason why it’s called a union. Two become one. Two people are to become of “one” mind. There’s a reason why the Bible says don’t become unequally yoked. If two people are entering into a marraige not on the same page, they’re dooming it to probable failure. If both individuals are entering into a marraige with the thought that it will probably fail, it probably will.

My wife and I agreed early on that if/when we got married, divorce wouldn’t be part of our lexicon. We’d make it work, no matter what, even when/if it hurt. That’s what marraige is about.

And, as lagniappe, in our case right now, I’m not the one working. My wife brings home the bacon – yet I’m still the head of the house. When we got married, we were both working, and we’re working towards a day when she no longer has to be the bread-winner. Give and take.

Prenups to me have all the hallmarks of selfishness, pride and distrust.

Of course, all of this hinges on worldview, on perspectives, priorities and beliefs.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I’m thinking from a Biblical, Christian perspective. Period. And yes, I’m well aware that the percentages of divorce are just as high among Christians as non-Christians. Doesn’t make it right.

Well good luck ignoring empirical statistical reality and focusing on what’s right. I hope it works out for you.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:59 PM

My wife and I agreed early on that if/when we got married, divorce wouldn’t be part of our lexicon. We’d make it work, no matter what, even when/if it hurt. That’s what marraige is about.

I hope you never find this out, but — certainly on average and by a big margin — women are not as principle-based as men. They are more emotion- and feeling-based. And what you have above there is a principal.

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 1:49 PM

You seem to think we should all have the freedom to choose to live or die, yet you would not extend that freedom to the unborn. The simple reality is that despite how difficult life can be the vast majority of people do not wish they were never born. Yet you are OK with people making life and death decisions for others when the reality is that just about all of the killed unborn would not choose death for themselves later in life?

Beyond the above I don’t see any point in any further discussion with you. I actually pity you. Nothing you have posted is thought provoking or earth shattering. Man has always struggled with his own existence in one way or another. But man usually rejects the idea that oblivion is ever a solution. You are not the first who imagines there is no point to life, nor will you be the last.

Too often though such people bring pain to the world as they reject the happiness of others in order to pursue their own selfish desires in order to justify their own existence. The sadness I feel at that is the fact that I do not have the power to open your heart. The best any of us can do is to lead by example. For your own sake and salvation I pray that you do someday have the courage to look beyond your own self delusions.

NotCoach on April 3, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 3, 2012 at 2:01 PM

My wife is a gem, someone I’m truly glad I found and was given – and (how I can never understand) she feels the same of me. She’s highly emotive to be sure. She’s also the only Christian in her family. Two of her sisters have already divorced. I come from a divorced family. I’ve determined never to let that happen to me.

Your comment also makes a claim/assumption that could border on chauvinism and I suspect that there are some women on this board who’d take serious umbrage with your commentary.

If anything, I’m the slug in our marraige and she should be the one divorcing me. But we also realize that Christ is in our marraige, as it was meant to be, a reflection of the Trinity.

I hope you can understand that. Thus, while I’m not perfect nor will be in this life, it is something I aim towards, the same as my wife. It is also why neither of us would settle for a prenup – not that either of us had anything of value going into the marriage or have anything now. Material goods mean nothing. What is important to me is my faith, my wife and my children.

If I were to become destitute and for some reason my wife bailed, it still would have been worth it.

Love is worth far more than money and things.

Logus on April 3, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2