Hot women are pro-life. Hey,it’s not me saying it. It’s the New York Times. And oddly enough they don’t seem thrilled about it.
Doing her best imitation of the Wicked Queen from Snow White, Gail Collins screeches in her latest NY Times column that she’s a bit perturbed that pro-life women are all young and beautiful.
“Planned Parenthood aids and abets the sexual abuse and prostitution of minors,” announced Lila Rose, the beautiful anti-abortion activist who led the project. The right wing is currently chock-full of stunning women who want to end their gender’s right to control their own bodies. Homely middle-aged men are just going to have to find another sex to push around.
Awww. Frumpy aging hispters are getting a little angry at pretty pro-lifers.
Let’s make this clear, the pro-life movement is chock-full of stunning women who don’t want a bunch of frumpy middle-aged hags telling them what freedom means. They know that freedom starts with life. That’s what makes the pro-aborts angry.
They’ve seen the effects of your utopian vision and have rejected it. Feminists are perturbed because posterity has kicked them in the posterior. I understand that it must be difficult for all those bra-burning Woodstock wanna-bes to see a new generation come along and say they were wrong. It’s no wonder they get all “I’ll get you my pretty” on beautiful young pro-lifers.
Have you seen the March for Life? So many young, vibrant and beautiful people, their eyes full of hope and smiles on their faces. It’s inspiring to most, except if you see their beauty, hope, and optimism as a threat like Gail Collins clearly does.
I almost want to start a calendar or something just to to tweak the hags. We could call it the “Women of Extremism” Calendar. That’ll really get them going.
Word of advice to Lila Rose: don’t accept any apples from New York Times columnists.
February 8, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Quartet:
Lila Rose, I'm home again, Rose
To get the sun back in the sky.
Lila Rose, I'm home again, Rose
About a thousand kisses shy.
Ding dong ding
I can hear the chapel bell chime.
Ding dong ding
At the least suggestion I'll pop the question.
Lila Rose, I'm home again, Rose
Without a sweetheart to my name.
Lila Rose, now everyone knows
That I am hoping you're the same
So here is my love song, not fancy or fine
Lila Rose, oh won't you be mine
Lila Rose, oh Lila Rose oh Lila Rose.
February 8, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Why thank you Matthew, what a compliment;)
February 8, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Super excited about this shift in sentiment. We should just evvvverything based on level of hotness. That would be something new for Americans / the media / etc.
Oh, wait….
My fave was the commenter who said people who are smiling and happy are pretty as a result. Though, I do know some happy pro-abortionists. They're only happy now because they don't know yet that they're wrong.
February 8, 2011 at 8:55 pm
*just judge evvvverything **
February 9, 2011 at 6:07 pm
After having read through the NY Times comments, I tried to post a comment myself, but comments have been closed. So, please indulge me by allowing me to comment here: I am female, I am pro-life, I have helped women seek free prenatal medical care, care that was as good as I received when I had my kids. I have helped raise money for organizations that support women in crisis pregnancies. I am also sick of pro-abortion advocates saying that pro-lifers care nothing for the mother and child after birth. The fact that they pull out this line of argument shows what little thought process goes into their beliefs and how little they know of the pro-life movement.
February 12, 2011 at 8:27 am
In reply to the anonymous above who suggested removing the funding of contraceptives: I am of the pro-choice camp myself, and I can tell you now that such views reflect very badly upon your side. Even us pro-choicers regard abortion as an unfortunate necessity, and something that in an ideal world wouldn't be needed. We consider contraception as by far the most practical option to bring that ideal world closer: Eliminate unplanned pregnency, and you eliminant most abortion. So when you pro-lifers oppose contraception in any way, it makes you appear to us as sex-loathing religious fundmanetalist nutjobs who want to see women punished for their sins. This is not the way to get us to seriously consider your arguments.
As for the rest of this article and discussion: Why does it matter which side has the most attractive women? Does it have any bearing on who is correct? Or are you all trying to run this debate like an advertising campaign, selling your product with shallow appearances?
February 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Facts don't bear out the notion that contraception prevents abortion.
Add human nature into the mix, and it's clear– contraception makes people feel entitled to have sex without the obvious result of children, so when children do result, they feel entitled to kill them. This especially works when you train men that women are going to be injecting themselves with massive amounts of hormones and it's their job to make sure there is sex without children.
Golly, it's almost like the classic feminists were right about abortion being just another way for men to be able to use and throw away women….
If you're so upset about the topic, ask your own camp: it was brought up by a pro-abort.
February 16, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Foxfier:
"contraception makes people feel entitled to have sex without the obvious result of children"
Well, yes. That's kind of the idea. You use the contraception, you don't get children.
"so when children do result"
This is not the idea. Contraception, when properly and consistantly used, works. It works very well indeed. Combine two forms of contraception, and the failure rate is so close to zero it can be ignored. You can even get zero, if you go for the surgical approach.
The whole point is that children won't result. Can't result. At least not if it's done properly… the single greatest problem with contraception is user error. This is why I support the idiot-proof options like IUDs.
"This especially works when you train men that women are going to be injecting themselves with massive amounts of hormones and it's their job to make sure there is sex without children."
Sorry to ruin your feminism, but that's the unfortunate side of the biology. It isn't very egalitarian by nature. Scientists have put a lot of work into finding some way to inhibit male fertility with drugs, but their testes have proven remarkably resistant.
February 17, 2011 at 1:00 am
This is not the idea.
Thus, the sense of entitlement.
Contraception, when properly and consistantly used, works
A fraction of the time.
Even high school sex ed points out that perfectly used, you still have 8% failure on the pill.
I know a midwife with three children, all of whom were conceived while she was on birth control– the pill (taken correctly), the shot, and an IUD. (The last one startled the doctors a bit, but apparently it's not unheard of– just statistically rare, with disagreements on if it's because the method is unpopular or if it's inherent.)
When not properly used, as is common with teens, pregnancy rates are higher.
orry to ruin your feminism, but that's the unfortunate side of the biology.
No, sex resulting in children is biology. Massive amounts of hormones are an attempt to over-ride biology– kind of like stopping the car by running into a wall.
It isn't very egalitarian by nature. Scientists have put a lot of work into finding some way to inhibit male fertility with drugs, but their testes have proven remarkably resistant.
Golly, it's almost like we're meant to reproduce, or something!