Before you read this you must promise to agree that this should not be classified as pro-abortion violence. That would be crazy. We all know that pro-lifers like you are the violent wackjobs. Remember, admitting your problem gets you halfway home.
Lehigh Valley Live reports that:
A Bethlehem man faces charges after he put a gun in his girlfriend’s mouth during an argument over whether she should have an abortion, court records say.
Jonathan Stock, 28, of the 3300 block of East Boulevard was arguing with Tammy Smith because he wanted her to get an abortion, records say. Stock initially pushed Smith against a wall and choked her, lifting her off her feet, court records say. Stock then threw Smith to the ground, grabbed her hair and pointed a .380-caliber pistol her in mouth and head and said he was going to kill her, records say.
Stock eventually let Smith go and she was able to run from the house. Police were called and Stock was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of simple assault, making terroristic threats and recklessly endangering another person. He was sent to Northampton County Prison in lieu of $75,000 bail.
I know we’re never supposed to call someone pro-abortion. But come on. This guy can definitely be called “pro-abortion,” right? So even though you could logically label this “pro-abortion violence” that is unacceptable. In fact, there’s no such thing as pro-abortion violence. You are the violent wacko. This poor guy was just trying to exercise a constitutional right that, I guess, only women have or something…
October 22, 2009 at 7:05 pm
"… and recklessly endangering another person."
If legal personhood comes to the preborn, it should read "… and [two counts of] recklessly endangering another person."
Why is there no personhood initiative in PA (this is from Lehigh Valley)? Even MD had one (last year).
gbm3
October 22, 2009 at 7:30 pm
definitely a pro-abort kind of guy
October 22, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Right, we're not supposed to say "pro-abortion", we're supposed to call them "pro-choice".
Oh wait–I guess pointing a pistol at someone's head isn't exactly "pro-choice" either….
October 22, 2009 at 8:20 pm
"Oh wait–I guess pointing a pistol at someone's head isn't exactly "pro-choice" either…."
Clearly, not all "choices" are created equal, a fact that some of the Demo-Cath cover organizations forget with a fair degree of regularity.
October 22, 2009 at 10:00 pm
The thing I don't get is why women don't look at this and see what a pass abortion gives violent creeps like this.
It is the ultimate FREE PASS and guys who don't want the responsibility of a family will use it as they wish.
October 22, 2009 at 10:05 pm
It makes me wonder if men will ever be considered to have any kind of "right" to not become a father, just as women have the "right" to not become a mother. Wouldn't that be more consistent? Perhaps then fathers wouldn't be "obligated" to support children they don't want (OUCH OUCH OUCH). Or are they exempt from the "right" because women somehow have the supreme reproductive decision making power?
It gets so messy when you deny the right of the child. In so many ways.
October 22, 2009 at 10:58 pm
For more harm warming profiles of the pro-"choice" mob, just watch their rants at YouTube. I can almost sense the devil in some of these people.
Also, by definition pro-life is defending everyone's life including the mothers'. Pro-"choice" is ready to allow a murder to take place. What kind of people will look the other way when
October 23, 2009 at 1:19 am
Yuck! Thanks for posting this Matt. We need to keep reminding ourselves of the unintentional (in the case of the feminists) ugliness that results when we allow people to be discarded as things.
PS. On a completely different aside, could you switch your comments back to the pop-up panel view? I can't view and or make comments online at work- filtering of blog pages via big brother:)- unless they're in the pop-up format.
PPS. I really should stop viewing your page at work- it's stealing from work, but it's very good reading! (I'm working on it- need to go to confession…) So maybe, to save my soul on some level, you should keep the format as is- it reigns in my illicit internet usage at work.
October 23, 2009 at 3:47 am
This very thing happened to someone I know. The one night stand who impregnated her did not take well to being told of the child, and he threatened to kill her. Gun and everything, right in the mouth. Charming.
October 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm
While I am certain it warms the cockles of your heart to believe that people who are pro-choice support or encourage this kind of disgusting criminal behavior, I know nothing can be further from the truth.
Also, I really don't understand this meme that secular liberals foster the belief that women should be treated as objects when there is no better place to look for the justification of misogynistic behavior than the Bible itself.
October 23, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Well Craig, when you dehumanize someone (the unborn child for instance), it leads people to this type of behavior. So, in effect, being pro-choice does foster this. Abortion is the seedbed of violence. As for objectifying women, Jesus, in the New Testament, was an amazing role model for how to treat women. He was very counterculture in his attitudes. He told us and taught us through his actions how women should be treated.
October 23, 2009 at 11:51 pm
PS – I didn't want to be anonymous, but it won't post my comment when I try to do through Google, not sure why…Susan
October 24, 2009 at 12:32 am
"(T)here is no better place to look for the justification of misogynistic behavior than the Bible itself."
Obviously, you haven't read the Q'uran. And you probably skimmed the Bible itself, since you missed the part where Jesus listened to women, forgave women, and even saved an adulteress from stoning (notice: the adulterER was not in that position).
In fact, Christianity was known in the Roman empire as a religion of women and slaves, and the first discussions of what we now call "human rights issues" occurred because Bartolomé de las Casas (a monk) and others famously appealed to the Spanish crown for the equal treatment of the native people of the Americas – because they were human beings with human souls and therefore deserved better treatment than enslavement and arbitrary death sentences.
Of course, if you really wanted to know about the treatment of women under Christianity, you might check out some accounts of the treatment of Chinese girls in the 1800s, including the casual manner in which they were killed ages 1-13 years old.
-JB
October 24, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Susan,
With this new comment format, I find I have to "preview" the comment before I hit the "post comment" button.
Maybe that'll work for you to.
October 24, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Susan,
While it is true that Jesus held progressive views of women, that did not carry over much in other parts of the New Testament. First Peter 3, First Timothy 2, Second Timothy 3 and 5, First Corinthians 11, First Corinthians 14:34 & 35.
JB,
Violence towards women is all too common, no matter what faith you ascribe to or whatever your country of origin. That is my point. Blaming secularism for the demeaning of women as objects is a false assertion.