Planned Parenthood: Pussy Is Power Word For Your Vagina

Uh …

How do I start this?

Ok … here it goes.

While Stumbling today I ran across a post on the website of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. It’s somewhat vulgar, and I hesitated in using the ‘p’ word in the title of this post. There was just no other way to convey what was being said.

The post is nothing more than typical feminist nonsense designed to turn young girls and women into unmarriable whores under the guise of “empowerment” … um, yeah.

Here, it’s better to read it yourself.

Since not every woman uses the word pussy to refer to her genitals, some people might think I have chosen this title to be provocative.

Which is partly true.

Not all women call their genitals pussy, and many have no particular name for them in a sexual context. And that is the problem: there is a lack of strong, positive words for the female genitalia, and those that do exist are often used as terms of abuse.

This was my reasoning in using the title Pussypedia. I believe that women need a sexual name for their genitals, and that it is up to women to lay claim to the word pussy, or the name used in any language with the same sexual value, and free it from the more offensive sense in which it refers to a woman as a sex object.

I also think it is necessary for little girls to have an official name for their genitals. In Sweden, RFSU uses the name snippa.

It’s nice to see that the author made it clear she was more concerned with being provocative than decent at least.

P***y is a vulgar word … period. It was designed to be one. Just like the male variant c**k. Also designed to be a vulgar word, and is completely used in the same context as the ‘p’ word. It is not a term of empowerment for men in any way that would differentiate from the empowerment value of the other.

This is simple fabricated victimhood in order to perpetuate hatred of men using baseless allegations. If women, and little girls, can be made to believe they are victims … this group can get more members and support.

To “free” the ‘p’ word from the more offensive sense in which it refers to women is to completely change its definition. Something liberals, and quacks like these women have a habit of doing.

The predatory behavior of this group is made crystal clear by their insistence that little girls have a private part empowering word with the same context as the new ‘sexually liberating’ definition of p***y. After all, you can’t fund abortions unless you sexualize young girls by giving them a sexually liberating word for their privates.

Well, I’m off to free the word c**k from the more offensive sense in which it refers to a man as a sex object.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Related articles by Zemanta

• Planned Parenthood: Annual Budget Still Over $1 Billion; More Preborn Children Killed (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• If Feminism Were Beneficial for Women…: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• The end of one-size-fits-all feminism (guardian.co.uk)
• More Federal Tax Dollars Go to Abortion Providers on Tax Day 2009 than Just One Year Ago (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)

You Should Not Be Able To Arrest A Woman For Breast-Feeding While Drunk

Image via Wikipedia

Can someone … anyone … explain how it is possible for a woman who is breast-feeding while intoxicated to be arrested while a pregnant woman who drinks goes free?

I am fed up with society’s hypocrisy when it comes to children, babies, or fetuses. There is no logical argument for there being a difference between a 7, 8, 9 month pregnant woman drinking, and a woman breast-feeding while drunk.

This constant struggle to simply try and figure out what is/is not a baby and what is/is not abuse and neglect will have to come to a head sooner or later.

Abortion is legal … unless you do it yourself. A pregnant woman can kill her 18 week old fetus, but someone else can’t? Have you ever even seen like during the time where a partial-birth abortion is performed?

clipped from www.grandforksherald.com A Grand Forks mother who police say was “extremely intoxicated” while breast-feeding her 6-week-old pleaded guilty to child neglect Tuesday. Officers responded to an unrelated call at a Grand Forks residence in the early morning of Feb. 13 and saw 26-year-old Stacey Anvarinia slurring her speech and breastfeeding, prosecutor Meredith Larson told the judge. Citing a police report, Larson said officers were concerned about the infant’s welfare, so they called Altru Hospital and were told that breast-feeding while intoxicated was not good for the child.

Poll Results On Life

The question was:
Do You Consider A Fetus Life Or Property?

76% of you feel that a fetus is life.

14% feel it’s property.

10% admitted they are hypocrites, and said it was both.

To read the post that spawned the poll … go here.

Need A Gift Idea? How About A Gift Card For An Abortion?

Planned Parenthood is quite possibly the funniest bunch of idiots to monitor. Where else can you find an organization that will tell you your donation will go towards exterminating black people, or provide gift cards for abortions? It just doesn’t get any better, or worse, than this.

Fox:

A number of Planned Parenthood clinics in Indiana and Illinois are offering gift certificates for their services this Christmas.

Officials say the vouchers enable people to give their loved ones “the gift of life” — that would help pay for annual checkups and birth control — but also can be used for abortions.

I wonder if Planned Parenthood will be passing out these cookies to their patients this Christmas.

Merry Christmas!

More Legal Hypocrisy In Death Of Fetus

Notice: I am not advocating any position for either pro-life or pro-choice in this post. My point is that the legal code of the United States is blatantly hypocritical when it comes to what is alive, and what is property.

There is a horrible case here in Vegas in which an 18 week old fetus was shot and killed during a murder. Our District Attorney, David Roger, has found a loophole in which he can charge the murderer with manslaughter as well because of the 18 week old fetus.

clipped from www.lvrj.com

The man who authorities allege used a chain saw and assault rifle to shoot into his estranged wife’s apartment, killing her boyfriend and the woman’s unborn child, will be charged in the slaying of the 18-week-old fetus, the Clark County district attorney said today.

District Attorney David Roger said lawyers in his office reviewed the case and determined they will pursue an additional charge of “manslaughter, killing of an unborn quick child,” against 25-year-old William John Keck.

A “quick child” is a child that has moved in the mother’s womb. The DA wasn’t originally going to be able to charge Keck with the death of the fetus.

clipped from www.lvrj.com

Police said Monday that they did not expect to charge William Keck in connection with the slaying of the fetus because it had not reached 25 weeks gestation, which Nevada law requires for a homicide charge. But Roger said a different state law that carries a possible sentence of one to 10 years would apply in this case.

“We did some research of the definition of an unborn quick child,” Roger said. “It is any movement of a fetus in a mother’s womb.”

Naturally, some people are mortified that you can’t charge someone with murder for the death of a fetus, but in the US legal code a fetus is property … not life. A mother’s body is her property, and she may do as she wishes with it.  That is how the courts determine that a mother has the right to abort a pregnancy. The mother would not have that right without a fetus being designated ‘property’ by the courts.

That’s the hypocrisy. How can you charge someone with murder (as some states do), or manslaughter in the death of a fetus if the fetus is ‘legally’ considered property? The answer is, you can’t. At least you shouldn’t be allowed to, but the courts are so convoluted when it comes to life that these loopholes exist. What makes the matter worse is how utterly stupid the pro-lifers and pro-choicers are in their dealing with this issue. The pro-lifers never use logical arguments backed up by the law, and science, to make their case. The pro-choicers are so retarded that they actually think the choice of the mother is the only thing that creates a distinction between life and property.

Read some of the comments from the newspaper’s website about these charges:

Erin wrote on November 06, 2008 12:42 PM:

I don’t know how anyone can classify this as an abortion issue. An abortion is any SURGICAL method of removing a fetus to end a pregnancy. I don’t know what article you are reading, but no where did I read anything about a surgical act, just a poor soon-to-be-mother who was brutally attacked and lost 2 very important people in her life! Neighbors or no neighbors, how many of you are going to try and stop someone who has a chainsaw and a gun? Hopefully you would call 911, but by the time anyone got there, this horrible crime would have already been finished. So everyone needs to get off their politcal soapboxes and pray, send good vibes, or whatever it is you do, for Angel for a full recovery! My goodness, where is the heart and compassion for humankind!

mercy me wrote on November 06, 2008 03:46 PM:

Hey Pro lifers! How incompetent of you. When women have an Abortion it is their choice to do so. whether you disagree or not it is still a LEGAL procedure. When a psychopath shoots you and kills your baby against your will, that is called MURDER. Why don’t you go Protest in front of an abortion clinic where you could possibly change someones mind and do some good, as opposed to throwing your useless beliefs in a conversation that isn’t even about abortion

Both of these people, and their respective supporters on the thread, are flat-out idiots. This case IS an abortion issue because the only reason a pregnant woman has the right to abort is because the fetus is considered her property. Since, legally speaking, an 18 week old fetus is only considered property … how can this guy be charged with manslaughter? It flies in the face of our current legal code as it pertains to the legal standing of a fetus. Furthermore, the notion that a fetus ceases to be a woman’s property because another party killed it is extremely uneducated and juvenile. Either the fetus is someone’s property, or it is not … which is it?

The truth is … we don’t know. I’m, of course, only referring to the legal code. Not your personal beliefs. If a fetus is property, as it is in the law, then you can not charge anyone with the death of a fetus. Period … end of story. If you are going to charge someone with the death of a fetus, then it is not property and must be considered a living being. Period … end of story. If we go the route of a fetus being property then we can only charge this Keck guy with malicious destruction of property, and nothing else. If the fetus is considered a living being we must also charge the mother with ending a life. Our legal code is meant to be applied uniformly, but it currently isn’t meeting that requirement when it comes to a fetus. Nor is it meeting that requirement when it comes to animals as well.

If the fetus is property then the mother has the right to do as she wishes with her property. That same standard is not applied to her pets though. This is intriguing, and enraging to me at the same time. Your pet is considered your property under the law. That is, until you harm your pet. Then the pet ceases to be property, and becomes a living creature. What the hell is that about? Either the pet is property, and I can do as I wish to it. Or the pet is a living creature, and I must treat it as such. Pets actually have more protection under the law than a fetus. Did you know that?

In both of these examples of hypocrisy in our legal code we must decide whether or not a fetus, or pet, is alive. Or if the two are considered property. This latest case is serving as an additional example of how convoluted our laws have become as a result of activist judges passing legislation they constitutionally aren’t allowed to pass. That’s all Roe v. Wade was. An illegal ruling by the court that is expressly forbidden by the US Constitution … regardless of your stance on life.

Legally speaking, this guy is being over charged for his crime.  Howver, I applaud David Roger for his ingenuity in finding a life-based charge in the Nevada legal code. Non of this takes away from the fact that we have to make a final decision, at some point, on what is property and what is life.

So what do you think? Is a fetus life, or property?

Anti-McCain Ad To Focus On Incest

Welcome GatewayPundit, LGF, Freepers and other readers.  The response to this post has been stellar.  I’ve been moderating a debate today, and hadn’t look at the site until now.  You guys have been awesome.

This is a Needs of the Many exclusive. If you see this post anywhere else it is because they are citing my work (which is great, and encouraged), or they are stealing my work. Please report back if you see this post anywhere else without a link back to my site.  I’ve been having a problem with theft of my posts … thank you.

Fax of job for anti-McCain incest ad.

A few days ago I was listening to the radio, and heard that there was an ad looking for actors from a talent agency that wanted a girl for an anti-McCain/pro-Obama commercial. Not a big deal, right? I didn’t think so either until the host of the show I was listening to read the contents of the job opportunity. This is a new low for the campaign. Click the picture above to read the job opportunity, and the “motivation” the actor should have for the part.

Casey refers to Casey Hendrickson on KXNT. I was listening to his show when he announced that he was sent this from another listener. I sent him an email, and asked if I could have the ad … this is what he sent me. He said he blacked out some usernames, and email addresses to protect privacy.

Notice the project name is “Anti Palin/McCain Political Ad” … they didn’t even have the ticket right. The actress will also not be paid for her work. Instead she will get a DVD of her commercial for her portfolio. It’s called TFDVD (time for DVD), and it is common in the modeling world if you are a model trying to get noticed.

The actress should be 15-19, and “break your heart” without saying a word. Her role is that of a victim of incest or rape who is now pregnant, and “forced to keep her child b/c Roe v. Wade overturned means no exception for rape or incest.”

LOL … wow! Talk about fear-mongering. There are so many problems with this ad, but that’s common with liberal advertisements.

The president, should McCain win, has no authority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Certainly, the vice president has no such authority. Yet Palin is getting top billing for this job. The president’s only authority in the matter is to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. Any judge appointed to the Supreme Court by the president must be approved by the Senate using “advise and consent.” So if McCain appoints a judge to the Supreme Court who is interested in reversing Roe v. Wade … they will have to be approved by the Senate first, and with a 2/3 majority. McCain has also made it clear that he will not have a litmus test on abortion for judges he’d appoint.

I’m also unaware of any proposed change to Roe v. Wade that removes the abortion option in cases of incest or rape. I could be wrong, but every proposal I can think of off the top of my head would allow abortion in the case of incest, rape or the health of the mother. In fact, McCain has made it clear that he supports abortion in cases of rape or incest. It’s a stance he’s always had. So attacking him on it is literally a lie.

This is what he told the NY Times on his incest/rape abortion stance in his previous run for president.

McCain was asked whether he would reinstate the Reagan era rule that prevents international family planning clinics that receive federal funds from discussing abortion. “I don’t believe they should advocate abortion with my tax dollars,” McCain said, adding that he opposed abortion except in cases of rape and incest. He was then asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped. McCain responded, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.”

New York Times, p. A17 Jan 25, 2000

McCain also has a long history of supporting changing the culture of abortion in the US rather than just pulling Roe v. Wade. Although he has repeatedly stated that Roe v. Wade was a mistake. He’s right there. Factually, Roe v. Wade was a mistake because it was an illegal ruling by the Supreme Court who was stepping WAY out of their legal power.

So, literally the ad has nothing on McCain at all.

Palin has a more strict pro-life stance than McCain, and the ad will likely be catering to the anti-Palin crowd. Palin opposes abortion in all cases except the health of the mother. However, the attempts to paint her as cruel are unfounded. The ad we are discussing also blows it here as well.

The ad says that the girl was “forced to keep her child” because Roe v. Wade was overturned. That’s also a blatant lie. No one would be forced to keep the child. There is always adoption.  So even if the most strict restrictions are placed upon abortion, no matter how unlikely, there will always be adoption to a loving home.  Palin doesn’t believe the child should be punished for the actions of the parents.

No doubt the ad will certainly anger a large segment of the population that is so far beyond ignorant that we don’t have a word for them yet, but it doesn’t change the fact that the ad is full of conjecture based on lies. I hope the Dems are not stupid enough to run the ad in Nebraska. It’s actually legal to abandon your kids there, and a guy just got rid of nine of them.

Bonus:

Gateway Pundit: Today’s NY Times Palin Smear Piece… Based On COMPLETE LIE

UPDATE:

GatewayPundit has a post up about how the Obama campaign went out and looked for rape victims after Palin was announced as VP candidate.

Gateway Pundit: Obama Campaign Looked For Rape Victims For Ads After Palin Was Nominated

Harry Reid Says Mormons Being Led Down Wrong Path By LDS Leaders

No doubt you haven’t heard about Harry Reid attacking Christians last week because the media doesn’t dare smear him. However, it is even more unlikely that you’ve heard about Reid smearing his own church leadership for being right-wingers.

Reid said people often question how he can be a Democrat and a Mormon, but called the social responsibility Democrats espouse a good fit with the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He questioned the guidance of some LDS Church leaders, though.

In remarks to the media following his address, Reid said that, “In the past years we’ve had some very prominent members of the church, like Ezra Taft Benson, who are really right-wing people.

“Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path,” he said.

Then there is this little tidbit from the AP:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Mormons were ill-served by the conservative politics of past church leaders.

Then after insulting past LDS leadership for being to conservative … Reid politely tells LDS members that their values are all screwed up.

He said Mormons must recognize there are more important issues than abortion and gay marriage. Reid opposes abortion.

“We have a country that needs to do something about health care. Global warming is here. We have a president who doesn’t know how to pronounce the words,” Reid said, referring to President Bush.

Harry, ever the hypocrite, thinks it is the “wrong path” for LDS leadership to uphold their traditional conservative beliefs, but he deems it ok to alter those beliefs to better coincide with the liberal agenda? For crying out loud … he told LDS members they should be more concerned with global warming than abortion!

When I spoke of this last night on my show, I received several calls from outraged LDS members who explained how the church goes out of its way to not endorse any candidate. Something that was stated very clearly in the RJ’s article.

The church does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms. Spokeswoman Kim Farah said church officials would not comment on Reid’s remarks.

To attack other faiths is bad enough, but to attack your own.

Is Fred Thompson Anti-Abortion … Part Deux?

I was the first to tell you all this about Fred Thompson’s abortion history. You can read about that HERE.

Now a video providing more evidence that Fred may have flip-flopped a little on abortion has surfaced.

Is Fred Thompson Anti-Abortion?

Hotair has a link to a new Fred Thompson video outlining his pro-life positions, but it seems to contradict his previously held stances somewhat.

I would like to preface this post by saying that I support Fred Thompson, and would likely endorse him for president when he makes it official. I just found something in his background that didn’t quite gel.

Project Vote Smart is a great site to research candidates both on the national, and local, levels. They have a question and answer sheet that they give to candidates to outline their positions on various issues. Most candidates take the time to answer the questions, and then Vote Smart publishes those answers on their site. That way you and I can look up a candidate to see where they stand on issues that are important to us.

Thompson has not answered one for this upcoming election yet, but he did answer the questions a few years ago. Vote Smart still has his answers on their site, and there was an interesting response from Thompson regarding abortion.

As you can see from Thompson’s answers above … he believes abortion should be legal. Now that doesn’t mean that he supports abortion by any means, and his voting record on abortion is clearly pro-life. However, this may hurt Thompson’s attempts at painting himself as a staunch pro-life candidate … as he seems to be doing in the video link above.

1 In 30 Aborted Babies Is Born Alive

I ran across this on Fark today, and was stunned that this was possible.

Daily Mail:

One in 30 babies aborted for medical reasons is born alive, a study has found.

They lived between 80 minutes to 6 hours. Keep in mind we are talking about aborted babies here.

Researchers looked at the outcome of 3,189 abortions performed on seriously handicapped foetuses at 20 hospitals between 1995 and 2004.

It showed that 102 – or around one in 30 – aborted for reasons such as Down’s Syndrome and heart defects, were born alive.

Check this out … this little one refused to die.

While there is no suggestion that any of the babies documented in the West Midlands study lived for more than a few hours, doctors in Norwich are currently treating a toddler born at 24 weeks after three botched terminations.

He was born three years ago and is still alive.

I wonder if the mother sued the doctor for failing to abort the child like this mother did.