When I called for this blog burst, I had no idea how much I would struggle with it. I start out relatively calm and then I can feel myself getting angrier and angrier as I dwell on the catastrophic hypocrisy that is the so-called “Pro-Life” movement. So once again, I’m left with only questions.
Why is it that SUZANNE and the fetus-fetishists only show concern for unborn children? Why do they never whine and cry and protest for children already born? Where is their concern for children living in poverty? Or for child trafficking? Or for disease, disability, lack of access to clean water, adequate health care, safety from abuse? Does any of this make an impression?
And this isn’t a problem confined only to the third world — it’s happening right here in Canada. If you visit Campaign 2000’s web site, you’ll find the following troubling statistics:
Campaign 2000 has released the 2007 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty, revealing that 18 years after the 1989 all-party resolution of the House of Commons, the child poverty rate is exactly the same. Despite a growing economy, a soaring dollar and low unemployment, Statistics Canada data show:
• 788,000 children – 11.7% - live in poverty
• A job alone is not enough. 41% of low-income children live in families where at least one parent works full-time all year, and the family still lives in poverty.
• The risk of living in poverty is not the same for all children. Poverty hits children in racialized, First Nations and recent immigrant communities much more often.
And SUZANNE and her merry band of fetus-fetishists? I guess they’re too busy trying to save the fetuses which are sooooooo much more important than actual live children.
So I call bullshit, even though it won’t make any difference. These people, these supposed compassionate conservatives, wouldn’t know compassion if it jumped up and bit them on their smug, judgmental, pathologically dishonest asses. And they never will.
Surprise, surprise. And here's Susie All-Caps now, proving my point oh-so perfectly. Does anyone else find it just the tiniest bit Freudian how she keeps referring to a fetus in the masculine?
20 comments:
People like SUZANNE couldn’t give a toss about the children once they’re born, other than to use them as cudgels to bash their irresponsible, lazy, or morally shiftless parents, who in their estimation are solely responsible for any well-deserved impoverishment the children in question might happen to be living in. On the one hand they will decry abortion as heinous crime against the unborn, but at the same time, they’re also happy to tear down women struggling to make ends meet as a single mother for having been so reckless as to get pregnant in the first place. Never mind that many of them are also adamantly opposed to contraception. Such is the kooky irrationality of these fanatical nitwits.
Red is right... all they want to do is control peoples bodies and punish women for daring to have sex.
They have no compassion... they are evil little authoritarian bastards.
The hypocricy of the right can be demonstrated by the fact that even if an individual chooses life and decides on adoption, rather than abortion, right-wingers are more than happy to cast aspersions on the character of a birthmother as a means to score points in a debate on other this or other subjects.
I have never had a pro-choice leftist trash me or my children, as a birthparent, but I have had several right-wingers do it.
It's a big part of why, even being pro-life personally, I would simply never advocate for government to be given the authority to control women's bodies or choices. I don't trust these people (pro-lifers) or their governments to have the wherewithal to leave a woman alone when pregnancy caused by rape or incest is at stake... OR pregnancies which pose a legitimate health risk for the mother and fetus.
Don't even bother. SUZANNE on a number of occasions has made it perfectly clear she doesn't believe that child poverty actually exists in Canada (and seriously, she said this.....its somewhere on Saskboy's blog). So its not an issue. In Canada, child poverty is a manufactured crisis brought about by parents who can't afford xboxes for their kids, not food and shelter.
Commenter "Eric" over SUZANNE's chimes in. He also has a blog....which, as far as I can tell, is yet another manifestation of some sexual degerate with his nose so far up someone else's crotch it's almost pornographic.
These people with their obsession with sex and death. They make me puke.
Rosie — That sounds like an echo of Kathy Shaidle's line about there being no child poverty. Or, in fact, no poverty at all in America or Canada. I guess she hasn't seen those shanty towns that are springing up all over the place down south in the wake of people being turfed out of their overleveraged homes... Kind of like Bill O'Reilly claiming there are no destitute veterans living under bridges (despite proof to the contrary). These people are in denial, plain and simple. Of course, if they were to reluctantly admit that poverty exists, they would simple blame the poor for their own misfortune anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point.
Ti-Guy — That Eric fellow seems to have a curious fixation on traffic accidents, but not in an intriguing Ballardian way. It just seems he can't come up with a better metaphor for what he's driving at. No pun intended.
I couldn't resist reading his lengthy rant about "sterile sex". Good grief, these SoCons really are quite obsessed with yammering on about sex, aren't they? Even after all that I'm not sure whether masturbation is included in the wickedness of "sterile sex" (the dangers of being too oblique, I guess).
What queer folk...
Heh. I didn't read much of it. Maybe he got "rear-ended at the intersection of Soddom and Gomorrah." or something.
I don't know and more importantly, I don't want to know. It's bad enough being faced with irrefutable evidence, on a daily basis, of SUZANNE's sexual congress.
Does SUZANNE continue to support or condone the murder of abortion doctors?
"Does anyone else find it just the tiniest bit Freudian how she keeps referring to a fetus in the masculine?"
Not so much, no. When gender is unspecified, the masculine is always the default. And I find it absolutely appalling that I'm defending her in anything, but there ya go...sometimes she's right.
I think it is Fraudian more than Freudian when it comes to SUZANNE.
She very well can't refer to the fetus as "it," since the fetus is already a fully-actualised person...quite possibly with a mortgage even, we really don't know.
I presumed that she defaulted to the masculine to avoid confusion with the mother. Of course she could have used the old reliable "s/he" or something similar.
I believe I brought up the same point when fetusfetishistmomma came rolling over here a few months back to give us a bunch of shit. She claimed it was all about 'saving lives' and 'educating people'.
Yet she wasn't out there protesting the fact that 12 year old Deamonte Driver died because he couldn't have a routine $80 tooth extraction before the bacteria in the abscess in his mouth traveled to his brain. This wasn't on some third world country, it was in my home state of Maryland.
They don't give a fuck about children or women, or religion or anything else. They care about power. That's it, end of fucking list.
I believe I brought up the same point when fetusfetishistmomma came rolling over here a few months back to give us a bunch of shit. She claimed it was all about 'saving lives' and 'educating people'.
You may also recall she left and did not return once asked "Do you support or condone the murder of abortion doctors? Yes or no?"
It is all about control. And numbers. Some of her fellow travelers will never reproduce if they can't rape someone then force them to bear their child.
Hey, looks like some enterprising anonymouse finally got a straight answer out of Suzie All-Caps regarding whether or not she condones violence against abortion doctors.
Thus spake Zarathustra: "I condemn violence against abortion doctors. I only condone the use of suasion [sic] and democratic means as a means of promoting fetal rights."
Fetal rights? Good grief.
"It's a big part of why, even being pro-life personally, I would simply never advocate for government to be given the authority to control women's bodies or choices. I don't trust these people (pro-lifers) or their governments to have the wherewithal to leave a woman alone when pregnancy caused by rape or incest is at stake... OR pregnancies which pose a legitimate health risk for the mother and fetus."
And in one paragraph, Meaghan absolutely nails the pro-choice position and why it is pro-choice not the "pro-abortion" nonsense that Suzanne and Patty Ross like to call it.
It is entirely possible to be "pro-life" personally and conduct yourself that way while still affording the others the freedom to follow their own conscience and freely choose.
Mike, hear hear.
Is anyone actually pro-abortion? Does anyone actually favour the Chinese government's forced abortions?
Claiming to be "pro-life" politically implies that everyone who disagrees with inserting the State into the wombs of the nation is "anti" life. That is ridiculous, and dishonest.
Post a Comment