According to the left an unborn fetus is nothing but a lump of cells that can be vacuumed out of a uterus anytime during a pregnancy. It’s just no big deal. An abortion. Because ending a pregnancy is so trivial they can do them in abortion clinics that don’t meet the same certifications as hospitals or medical clinics. So it would follow that if ending a pregnancy is no big deal that it must be no big deal for the woman getting an abortion, right? Well, as it turns out it is a very big deal. Such a big deal that a man is going to jail for tricking his girlfriend into getting pregnant. A pregnancy she ended with a ‘no big deal’ abortion (see Man who sabotaged condoms guilty of sexual assault, top court rules by SEAN FINE posted 3/7/2014 on The Globe and Mail).
Men who sabotage condoms may turn an otherwise consensual act with a woman into sexual assault, and women who lie about using birth control have been left with some uncertainty about whether they, too, could face charges, under a Supreme Court ruling yesterday on deception before sex.
The court was unanimous that Craig Hutchinson of Nova Scotia was guilty of sexual assault for poking pin-sized holes in condoms because he hoped to keep his girlfriend from leaving him by getting her pregnant. His fraud carried such a risk of harm it nullified her consent, four of seven judges said. (She did become pregnant, but left him and had an abortion.) The risk to a woman who does not want to get pregnant is as serious in its way as the risk of HIV transmission from a partner who committed deception by failing to disclose their disease, the majority said.
“The concept of ‘harm’ does not encompass only bodily harm in the traditional sense of that term; it includes at least the sorts of profound changes in a woman’s body — changes that may be welcomed or changes that a woman may choose not to accept — resulting from pregnancy,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote, supported by Justice Marshall Rothstein and Justice Richard Wagner…
Peter Sankoff, a specialist in criminal law at the University of Alberta, said that psychological harm could in rare cases be a foundation for a future sexual assault claim by a man, say, whose condoms were sabotaged by a woman so she could have a baby. In a series of tweets, he said he knows many men who experienced an unwanted child, and as a result “spiralled downward” psychologically.
Others, including Michael Plaxton of the University of Saskatchewan law school, Sonia Lawrence of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, and Luke Craggs, the lawyer for Mr. Hutchinson, disagreed, saying the court would limit charges to cases where there was bodily harm.
“My preliminary view is that the decision seems to have been carefully written such that women who lie about birth control don’t have the same jeopardy,” Mr. Craggs said in an interview. Mr. Hutchinson was found guilty at his trial and sentenced to 18 months in jail, but had been free on bail awaiting the Supreme Court ruling.
So if a woman poked holes into a condom there would be no crime. Because it’s her body. Even though it will change the man’s life greatly if she tricked him into having a baby with her. For he must now provide financially for that child. So her deception is okay while his deception is not. So harm from deception is based on how the woman feels. If she wants a baby and tricks her boyfriend that’s okay. If she doesn’t want a baby and gets an abortion without telling her husband that’s okay, too. And whatever the man wants, does or says is wrong. Okay. Got it.
Impregnating a woman against her will is wrong. No one is going to argue in defense of that. But if that woman gets an abortion where is the harm? Unless abortions are a big deal. And are very traumatic to a woman. Or can cause some long-term health problems (say increase the incidence of breast cancer from interrupting the hormonal changes going on in her body). Or leave her with an emotional scar years later when she thinks about the child that she aborted. If these are real harms then wouldn’t all abortions be harmful? If so then there should be no abortions at all. And if a woman doesn’t want a child then she shouldn’t have sex. That would ensure no harm would ever befall a woman caused by an unwanted pregnancy. And she could never commit a potential crime by lying about being on the pill.
People used to be like that. Responsible. But providing free birth control and abortion on demand sure has changed that. And opened up women to all sorts of harm.
Democrats bemoan that the Republicans want to take America back to the 1950s. Where women didn’t work. But stayed at home and raised families. Where they ware barefoot and pregnant. With three jobs in the household. A cook in the kitchen. A maid in the house. And a whore in the bedroom. Always serving the needs of others. But never themselves. While their husbands go out and build a career. And enjoy life. Leaving their wives behind to suffer from the disease of pregnancy over and over again. And the oppression of motherhood.
Of course the Republicans don’t quite see it that way. They don’t see pregnancy as a disease. Or raising a family as oppression. They see a loving household as a good thing. Where they can raise their children to be good citizens. To respect one another. And to treat women like ladies. To respect them. And protect their dignity. To be chivalrous. To hold a door for them. To offer their seat to them on a crowded bus. To think of them as human beings. And not just as vessels holding their sexual parts. Sexual objects that are only useful when a man wants to have a good time.
Democrats disparage those old television shows like Father Knows Best, The Donna Reed Show, Leave it to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, etc. Because they treated their women horribly. There was no hooking up or casual sex at all. For 1950s society did not depict their women sexually. They dressed and acted conservatively. No bare midriffs, lower back tattoos, plunging necklines or exposed thongs for men to leer at. Men were polite to women. And boys were polite to girls. Unless they had cooties. Even then if they were mean parents, teachers and older siblings admonished them for that. Oh yeah, it was sheer hell for women back then.
Democrats have Liberated Women to be Pure Sex Objects for Men everywhere to Enjoy
Then came the Sixties. And the Sexual Revolution. The counterculture (i.e., young Democrats) railed against treating women with respect. For they have vaginas. And they should use them as often as they darn well pleased. Not to just get married and raise a family. To one man for the rest of their life. The heck with that. They should use their sexual parts to please more than just one man. So instead of only one man enjoying her vagina a woman should allow many men to enjoy her vagina. It was the dawn of the women’s movement. Feminism. And never again would American society treat women like prim and proper ladies. At least not with feminists around.
As the conservatives tried to maintain a lady’s honor the young liberal Democrats fought censorship. For the right to show naked women with their legs spread in pornographic magazines. To show them fully naked in the movies. In simulated sex acts. And performing real sex acts in hardcore pornographic movies. Yes, Democrats have finally liberated women to be pure sex objects for men everywhere to enjoy. Of course Democrats called this liberating. While dirty old (and young) men just say, “Thank you!”
Seedy strip clubs became high-scale gentlemen’s clubs. Where women stripped down to a thong and rubbed herself on a man’s lap. Or did more in the VIP/champagne rooms. Yes, this was liberating for women. Sexy women were everywhere. Half-naked women sold things on television. Boys could peak at naked women spreading their legs in magazines at the local drug store. Most R-rated movies contained gratuitous nude scenes. And when the VCR came out pornography really took off. Women became slabs of meat on camera. Making hundreds of titles. Putting a lot of miles on their vaginas. And other openings.
Democrats are doing everything within their Power to Nationalize a Woman’s Vagina
So who do the kings of the sexual exploitation of women vote for? These businesses all vote Democrat. Because they don’t want to roll time back to the 1950s when women weren’t sexual objects. For they profit handsomely on the liberation of women. While bombarding men with their pornographic images. So that when they see a woman today they’re not thinking about what she’s thinking. They’re thinking about what she looks like naked. And how much they would like to do things with her that they do in those pornographic films. Sometimes forcing the issue with alcohol and drugs. Bringing terms like ‘date-rape’ and ‘roofie’ into the lexicon. For the American left has so sexualized women that more and more men can think of nothing else but hooking up.
The Democrats have long championed birth control and abortion. To remove any consequences from a sexually active lifestyle. Encouraging women to offer their vaginas to as many men as possible. Which they have. Kicking off an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases. And not because women’s husbands were seeing prostitutes at the local saloon like they were before Prohibition. Bringing diseases home to their wives. Which helped kick off the Prohibition movement as men drank away their paychecks and did bad things. Like being abusive to their wives and giving them syphilis and other STDs. No. Today women are out there hooking up for casual sex. Bringing STDs into their lives. Because Democrats have taught them all their lives that they should be having casual sex. Instead of getting married. Because that would be a living hell.
Perhaps the greatest political trick ever done was how Democrats got women to choose to be sexual objects. Getting them to believe that casual sex with many different partners is liberating. And not objectifying. The next greatest political trick ever done was how these same Democrats convinced women that it’s the Republicans that have a war on women. Not the Democrats. Who are doing everything within their power to nationalize a woman’s vagina. So feminist men (who are mostly Democrat) can enjoy a lady’s charms without having to marry her. Like they did in the God-awful 1950s. Where Republican men kept their women barefoot and pregnant. Well, if Republicans want women barefoot and pregnant then Democrats want women with their legs spread and their wombs barren. Yet it’s the Republicans who have a war on women. Go figure.
Boys love their fathers. And it’s tough losing them. Just listen to some Pink Floyd music. During the Roger Waters’ period. Whose concept albums were shaped by his experience growing up without a father who died in World War II. As the children of Britain grew up in a dearth of fathers following World War II. As so many of their fathers died in the war. Waters went on to great success. But he suffered for his art. As all great artists do. Who probably would have preferred to be happy instead of being a great artist.
The bond between child and parent is so strong that the parent doesn’t even have to die to affect the child. Just periods of separation is enough to do damage (see Military deployments tied to teens’ depression by Kathleen Raven posted 11/29/2013 on Reuters).
Adolescents who experience the deployment of a family member in the U.S. military may face an increased risk of depression, suggests a new study.
Ninth- and eleventh-grade students in California public schools with two or more deployment experiences over the past decade were 56 percent more likely to feel sad or hopeless compared with their non-military-family peers, the researchers found.
The same kids were 34 percent more likely to have suicidal thoughts.
So it would follow the more deployments (i.e., the less time the parent spends with their child) the more likely the increased risk of depression, feelings of hopelessness and suicidal thoughts. So the more time one parent stays away the less happy and the more frequent mental health issues a child suffers. With the child no doubt suffering the most should that parent die in a combat zone. Thus being removed from the child’s life forever. Sad. But intuitive. For most probably didn’t need a study to tell them this.
The same can be said about single mothers. And their children. For it is the absence of one parent from their lives that reduces the quality of their lives. Because that father isn’t there to toss the football around with him after school. To attend a tea party with her favorite stuffed animals. To be there to teach them what to do when they lose power during a thunderstorm. And make them feel safe just by being there.
We take a lot of things Dad does—or did—for granted. And the more time we spent with him the more we’re able to do the things he did when he’s no longer there to do them. So the more time we have with Dad the stronger and more able we become. The less time we have the less strong or able we become. And if he’s not there at all it is like a child losing him in a military deployment.
The Democrats attack the Republicans and claim they have a war on women. Because they don’t want to provide free birth control. Abortion. Or an expanding welfare state for single mothers. The left really doesn’t want women to have children. And if they do they want to help mothers raise their children without a father. By having the state replace the father. So women can remain free. Pursue careers. And not be condemned to stay-at-home motherhood. The left does all of these things for women. For it’s what is best for them. Without ever considering what’s best for the child. Two parents. They will do studies to prove this if they can condemn the military for the effect it has on children. But when it’s about women enjoying life to the fullest while treating pregnancy as a disease to avoid it’s a different story. And for those women who become infected with pregnancy? They don’t need a man in their life. As long as there is the reassuring embrace of government to comfort her.
The Republicans don’t have a war on women. But you could say that Democrats have a war on children. As they always put a woman’s happiness over her child’s happiness. For a child would rather grow up in a traditional family than be shuffled back and forth from daycare. Just listen to some Pink Floyd music if you don’t believe that’s true.
In the classic World War II movie Run Silent Run Deep every time they went to battle stations they patted the backside of a pinup girl. The pinup was one of artist Gil Elvgren’s creations. You can see it in the movie trailer just after the one minute mark.
Patting the backside of this voluptuous pinup brought the sailors good luck. And was a constant reminder of their wife or sweetheart waiting for them at home. Or it just let the sailor dream of the pretty woman they would one day meet at home once the war was over. If they survived. And the odds for that weren’t that good. Especially for those in the submarine service. Or anyone in combat. So who could begrudge these boys a little titillation from a sexy pinup girl? To remind them what they’re fighting for. The people at home. Pretty ladies. And the American way. But, alas, they can’t do that today. Because it creates a hostile work environment. In addition to the hostile work environment created by the enemy trying to kill them (see Navy Will Inspect Its Bathrooms for ‘Degrading’ Images of Women by Elizabeth Harrington posted 6/18/2013 on CNSNews.com).
In line with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s order for troops to have their workplaces searched for “degrading or offensive” materials — part of an attempt to curb sexual assault in the military — the Navy will inspect even its bathrooms…
The “comprehensive visual inspections” of the workspaces conducted by commanding officers will “ensure they are free from materials that create a degrading, hostile, or offensive work environment…”
All branches of the military are under orders to remove inappropriate materials from work spaces, but the Air Force has made an exception for some of the pin-up art of World War II.
According to a December 2012 Dayton Daily News report, paintings of voluptuous women will not be removed from the nose cones of old planes at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
I hate to say this but this wasn’t a problem when there were only men in combat. Where thoughts were only focused on a sexy pinup. And their sweetheart at home. With women on board, though, those thoughts can drift to the woman working with them in close quarters. Who they can kill time with during unbearable stretches of boredom at sea. Where there is nothing to do once off duty. So far from home. Especially when you haven’t enjoyed the company of a woman in months.
So today the military has to deal with sexual assaults. As well as the occasional pregnancy during active duty. For men aren’t the only ones bored while off duty. Women get bored, too. And some women get together with some of the men. And they help each other get over their boredom. You know they are. And there’s no point trying to tell them not to. It’s why we give birth control to our teens. And give them access to abortion services. Because no matter what we say they are going to have sex anyway. Yet a few years or so later we expect them to become puritanical and chaste. Something we don’t dare demand of people of the same age who aren’t serving in the military.
The military is really not a good place for social experimentation. Having to deal with sexual assaults and the occasional pregnancy takes resources away from the mission. It is a distraction. Trying to segregate men and women while off duty sleeping, showering or going to the bathroom. That’s space that they have to take away from someplace else. And on a ship there isn’t a whole lot to begin with.
If they want to cut down on sexual assaults then they should stop sexualizing women at such an early age. And force-feeding them birth control. Giving them access to abortion services. And even letting girls as young as 15 buy the morning-after pill without a doctor’s prescription or parental notification. Signaling to boys that these girls are there to have sex with. So they have nothing but sex on the mind. Even a well-disciplined killer in the military may falter when there is more than a pinup poster in their midst. But an actual woman of flesh and blood. That they may want to pat on the backside for good luck when going to battle stations. Or more. Because they are flesh and blood men. Brought up in a highly sexualized world. Where they’ve learned it’s okay to have sex with women. Because women have birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill.
The Women’s Movement encouraged Women to Choose a Career over Having Babies
It is common for a married couple planning to have children to both work. To put as much money into the bank for a down payment on a house to raise their family in. In a nice neighborhood with good schools. After they buy that house and have their first child it is common for the woman to quit working to stay home and take care of their newborn child. And the other children they have. While the husband continues to work.
The women’s movement changed that. It encouraged women to have fewer babies (or none at all) and to have a career instead. Those who had children were encouraged to return to work as soon as possible. To just dump their kids into daycare and continue their careers. But it doesn’t always work that way. Sometimes a woman determined not to let her children interfere with her career has a change of heart after having her first child. Deciding not to return to work. Choosing to, instead, stay at home and raise her children. And not dump them into daycare.
This, of course, causes problems for employers. Making it more risky to hire women. Especially in this litigious world. They have to hold a woman’s job for her when she goes on maternity leaves. And if her job is a critical job, like doing payroll, others will have to split up her job responsibilities. Perhaps hiring a temp to pick up the less critical tasks (filing, answering phones, etc.). For mistakes in payroll do not make happy employees. And mistakes in payroll taxes can cause some very costly problems with the government. If a woman doesn’t plan on returning to work after having her baby the business can hire a new employee. And in her last weeks before leaving to have her child she can train her replacement for an orderly transfer of her responsibilities. Something she can’t do if she changes her mind while on maternity leave.
In the Marriage Contract the Wife gives up her Career to Raise the Children while her Husband provides Financial Support
This can be a reason why men earn more than women. Because there is less of a chance of his changing his mind to be a stay-at-home parent. It happens. But not as often as it happens with women. Because women have a biological clock ticking. Which can greatly influence her thinking on her long-held career plans. For a woman has to leave work to have a child. And to recover from the birth. Men don’t. Their lives can go on with little change. And because a woman has to take time off she spends more time bonding with her newborn child. Which is a powerful force. Mothers are very protective of their babies. And even though she had all intentions of returning to work having the welfare of her newborn dependent on her can change her best laid plans.
Of course, leaving the workforce not only affects her employer it affects the household budget. For that lost paycheck can make life more difficult at home. Forcing the new family to get by on less. Government understands this. And they design the tax code to help families raise children. Because the government needs people to have babies. And they need them to have more than two. For if they only have two the population will not continue to grow. These children will only replace their parents. Not expand the tax base to help pay for an expanding menu of government benefits going to an aging population. But having more than two children is very expensive. Which is why married families get a lot of deductions and credits in the tax code. To help offset the high cost of having children. So they will have more children.
And there are other legal issues and traditions to help families. Such as the baby’s last name. A woman may hyphenate her name when married. But you can’t do that with children. For in a generation or two a person’s name will grow so long with multiple hyphens that it will make it difficult to use on forms, to sign a contract or a check. Put on a nametag. Tradition has the father being the financial provider. As the father is not physically impacted by pregnancy. He can keep working. And providing. So giving the child the father’s last name makes it easy for the child to go through life. And makes it clear that the father is financially responsible for that child. Just like it’s a man’s work benefits that cover his wife and children. Because in the contract of marriage the wife gives up her career to do something more important. Raise their children. But she can only do that if her husband provides the income, the health care benefits, house, car, groceries, etc., the family needs.
If Same-Sex Marriage is about an Unfair Tax Code the Left could just vote Republican so we can Lower Taxes for Everyone
The institution of marriage developed to help a man and a woman raise children. Having children came first. People have been having children long before they even talked or used tools. Then civilization advanced. The economy grew more complex. This advanced civilization was costly. Especially when raising children. Then the institution of marriage came along to help families have children. Governments and business help families have and raise children. For we need families to have and raise children. Businesses need an expanding population. For a business needs more people to grow. To buy the goods and services of their expanding business. Just as government needs an expanding population. To pay the taxes to fund an expanding government. An expanding population translates into a growing and prosperous economy. And a growing and more generous government. Because the more people there are the more people government can tax.
Men and women have married without raising a family. Yet they still get some of the benefits we developed to help married people raise children. Such as one spouse being covered under the other’s employer’s health insurance benefit. Raising the business’ costs without providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost. And it’s the same for government. A married couple may get some favorable tax benefits that cost the government while not providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost. So there is a short-term benefit for a childless marriage. The woman doesn’t leave the workforce. She builds her career and earns more income. Providing more tax revenue. But there is no long-term benefit. For when this couple leaves the workforce there will be no one to replace them. So while they start consuming Social Security and Medicare benefits they have not added new people to the workforce to pay for these.
Understanding how and why we have the institution of marriage makes the current same-sex marriage debate puzzling to say the least. For marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about lowering the cost of raising children. Which both business and government needs. For if couples don’t have more than two children then the population will no longer expand. And it will age. Making it more costly for government. While providing a shrinking customer base for businesses. A couple that does not bring new children into the world provides no return on the cost of the marriage benefits they receive. And a same-sex marriage will be no different than a childless marriage between a man and a woman. From an economic/government funding point of view. They will not help grow the economy. They will not lower the future cost of government. And there won’t be a legal or traditional need for giving a newborn child a last name. As they can’t procreate.
If procreation is out of the equation people can enter committed relationships without the institution of marriage. During the sexual revolution the Left belittled the institution of marriage and asked why anyone needed a piece of paper to sanction their love. And these people lived together flaunting convention. And tradition. Using birth control and the recently legalized abortion to make sure no children resulted from these new living arrangements. These marriage-less committed relationships. Now marriage is the number one issue of the Left. If it’s for same-sex couples the institution they hated and worked so hard to destroy is now the greatest thing in the world. And on top of everything else the Left, who supports higher taxes, are arguing that the tax code unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples. If that is the basis of this being a civil rights issue the Left could just vote Republican so we can lower taxes for everyone. Then they could have everything they want. The free love of the sexual revolution. Low taxes. And no reason to get married.
Men and women are different. They notice that difference during school. In the workplace. In single bars. And they will probably notice that difference in a combat zone. Where normal actions between men and women anywhere else could have drastically different consequences in a combat zone (see Marine survey lists concerns on women in combat by JULIE WATSON, Associated Press, posted 2/1/2013 on Yahoo! News).
Male Marines listed being falsely accused of sexual harassment or assault as a top concern in a survey about moving women into combat jobs, and thousands indicated the change could prompt them to leave the service altogether…
Among the other top concerns listed by male Marines were possible fraternization and preferential treatment of some Marines.
Respondents also worried that women would be limited because of pregnancy or personal issues that could affect a unit before it’s sent to the battlefield…
Some, however, said the survey shows the need for sensitivity training and guidance from leadership so the change goes smoothly, as occurred when the military ended its policy that barred openly gay troops…
Just as the Marine Corps adjusted to the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” despite being the most resistant among the military branches, troops will likely fall in line again with this latest historical milestone, said Frakt, a visiting professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
Gay men and heterosexual women are different. Heterosexual men may be attracted to the heterosexual women in their units. They’re not going to be attracted to gay men. And no relationship that can result in a pregnancy is going to result between heterosexual men and gay men. So this is not the same as repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.
About 17 percent of male Marine respondents and 4 percent of female respondents who planned to stay in the service or were undecided said they would likely leave if women move into combat positions. That number jumped to 22 percent for male Marines and 17 percent for female Marines if women are assigned involuntarily to those jobs, according to the survey.
Interesting. Some 17% of active duty female Marines would leave the Corps if assigned to a combat position against their will. Like they assigned men to all of the time. So not all women are on board with putting women into combat.
Both sexes mentioned intimate relationships between Marines and feeling obligated to protect female Marines among their top five concerns about the change.
Female Marines also said they worried about being targeted by enemies as POWs, the risk of sexual harassment or assault, and hygiene facilities, according to the survey, which did not give specifics.
One can guess. Marines in a combat zone are in the field. They sleep on the ground. They don’t bathe. And don’t use bathrooms. The ground is their toilet. Where there are no toilet stalls with disposal bins for soiled feminine hygiene products. Or dispensers for new ones. So all of those things women do when they go off to powder their nose behind closed doors they will be doing in the field. At a very short distance from their fellow Marines. Many of whom will be men.
Over the past decade, many male service members already have been fighting alongside women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women who serve in supply units, as clerks and with military police have ended up on the unmarked front lines of modern warfare.
Some active duty women have gotten pregnant. So there is some fraternization going on. Also, pilots, air crews, supply personnel and military police typically work out of bases. Where they have segregated living quarters, toilets and showers. Things you don’t have when deployed in the field. So you can’t really say that women are already serving in combat zones as if they are already serving in the infantry.
Yes, women are serving heroically in combat zones. Some have been wounded. And some have died. But they haven’t served in the infantry. Where they live and fight like animals. With no propriety about any bodily functions. Where you may have to poop in your helmet while hunkered down next to someone in a foxhole. Then risk getting your hands shot off while dumping your helmet outside of your foxhole. Or you just crap in your foxhole. For the filth and stench in your foxhole is a whole lot better than what is happening outside of your foxhole. Unable to go someplace to powder her nose a woman would have to do this next to whoever is in her foxhole with her. As well as attend to her other needs. Such as her feminine hygiene needs. No doubt a concern of some female Marines who were concerned about hygiene facilities.
In a combat zone there is strength in numbers. And individuals cut off from the main body of troops are easy pickings for the enemy. So while some ladies would like a modicum of privacy to powder their nose they do so at their own risk. For the farther she wonders off the greater the chance the enemy will capture her. Unless a detail of women go with her to provide protection. Which could weaken the unit. Or cause an unnecessary rescue mission should the enemy capture them all. Especially when her fellow Marines worry about what the enemy may do to them. Which could weaken the unit even more should the rescue mission fail. Things that just wouldn’t happen if there were only men in combat zones. Even if some of those men were gay.
In America pregnant women see doctors. When they go into labor they have doctors deliver their baby. It’s not like that in Britain. Their National Health Service (NHS) has determined it is not cost-effective to have doctors deal with pregnancies and birth. In Britain midwives handle pregnancies and births. Highly trained individuals who work one-on-one with pregnant women through their pregnancies, deliver their babies and attend to post-natal care. In special birthing wards. Or at home. The way humans did it for hundreds of millions of years before doctors and hospitals appeared on the scene.
In America, though, women go to the hospital when they enter labor. And have a doctor deliver their babies. At least so far. As Obamacare takes America towards national health care they may adopt cost-saving procedures just like the NHS. And regulate pregnancies and births to midwives. Where having a baby will change in the United States and become more like it is in the UK. And be more like this (see Pregnant women ‘unsupported’ by NHS by Rebecca Smith posted 1/20/2013 on The Telegraph).
A survey in the annual state of maternity services report by the College found that four in 10 women see up to nine or 10 midwives during their pregnancy instead of being able to build a relationship and confidence in one, as is recommended.
Also one fifth of women are left alone during labour, contrary to guidelines saying women should have one to one care.
Midwives are overstretched due to a baby boom and increasing numbers of women over the age of 40 having babies who require extra care due to a high risk of complications, experts said…
“In labour the majority of women are getting high quality care that is needed to be safe but one fifth of the women we surveyed said they did not get adequate support in labour. The wards are so busy that there are occasions when midwives are not able to give women the concentrated care they would like.”
Elizabeth Duff, Senior Policy Adviser at the National Childbirth Trust, said: “Anxiety and tension about being left alone means women cannot relax and focus on their labour: this in turn leads to more use of pain-relieving drugs and higher levels of intervention, which most women wish to avoid so that they are well and fit to start caring for their baby after the birth…”
The majority of women are getting high quality care that is needed to be safe. And when that quality level falls a little and they complain too much they give them pain-relieving drugs. To quiet them down. So they can return to the business of mass-production baby birthing. The cost-effective way. And soon to be the Obamacare way.
Liberals help Women satisfy the Filthy Sexual Desires of Men by giving them Birth Control and Access to Abortion
Liberals may confuse some people. As they often seem to argue both sides of an issue. Those they champion. As well as those they condemn. It can leave one scratching one’s head. For the liberals are the pure breeds of the political world. They come from the most exclusive and the most expensive halls of higher education. The Ivy League. So they’re supposed to be really smart. But do smart people consistently contradict themselves? No, they don’t. So either the Ivy League doesn’t graduate smart people. Or they graduate intellectually dishonest people. Take the issue of marriage, for example.
The Left empowered women in the Sixties. By giving them the birth control pill. So they didn’t have to get married and give up on life. No. Thanks to the birth control pill (and abortion) women could have careers. They could enjoy life. Just like a man. And didn’t have to live under the heel of a jackbooted thug. Or otherwise known by those on the left, a husband. No longer must they stay barefoot and pregnant. Living life as a cook, maid and whore. Thanks to the pill she didn’t have to succumb to the hell of wedded bliss. For marriage sentenced a woman to hell. There was nothing redeeming about it. Yet they argue marriage is a beautiful thing for gay people. And that we should rewrite law to grant this expression of love between two people to everyone. Including lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered (LGBT) people. Even though it’s the worst thing that can happen to a heterosexual woman.
Being cook and maid is bad enough but being a whore in the bedroom is the worst part of being married for a woman. For it is the most demeaning thing. To satisfy the filthy sexual desires of a man. Making a woman little more than her sexual parts. Some on the left even go so far as to call all sex within marriage rape. (Unless it’s gay marriage, of course.) For women are more than their sexual parts. They are not here only to satisfy the filthy sexual desires of men. Yet liberals want to provide free birth control and abortion services to all women. So they can satisfy the filthy sexual desires of even more men. For it’s only when men satisfy their sexual desires that there is a need for birth control or abortion.
Despite the Republican’s ‘War on Women’ it often Appears that it is the Liberals who don’t like the Female Condition
Birth control and abortion are important issues for women. It’s what made women vote for President Obama according to the exit polls. To keep their birth control and access to abortion. Even though no one was campaigning to take these away. They call birth control and abortion women’s health issues. Equating pregnancy with a disease. Something that’s imperative for government to help women avoid. And they make other altruistic arguments. That abortion is better than having another unwanted child born to become a costly ward of the state. And that abortion is better than bringing another baby into an already overcrowded and polluted world. Yet they champion the cause of gay adoption. Even though there would be no babies available to adopt in their perfect world where no unwanted child is born into an overcrowded and polluted world. As they would prefer to abort the babies gay couples want to adopt.
Even though liberals say that only they can protect women from the Republican’s ‘war on women’ it often appears that it is the liberals who don’t like the female condition. As many of their actions help women to be more like men. For examples, liberals would like to put the NFL out of business. For football is a brutal and barbaric sport in their eyes. As evidenced by the rise in concussions and other serious injuries. And it doesn’t stop at the NFL. They would like to ban it from colleges, high schools and even at the pee wee level. Yet they will fight for the right to allow girls to play this barbaric sport with the boys. And even applaud when a girl plays this barbaric sport as good if not better than the boys. Despite the concussion or other serious injury that may befall her. Ditto for boxing.
Liberals have never liked the military. For a couple of reasons. They don’t like defense spending. As they’d rather spend that money on social programs. And they really don’t like using violence. They abhor going to war. And once called returning Vietnam soldiers some unkind names. They often see soldiers as those bullies who picked on them in school. Extreme alpha males who love violence. They’ll support the civilians who volunteer to serve. But they really don’t like the lifers. The career people. Who they look at as if there is something wrong with them. A bunch of gun-crazy nuts. Warmongers. Secretive people we should be very weary of. And their military industrial complex. Yet they fight for the advancement of women up the chain of command. For there is nothing better than women becoming lifers and career people. Just like those extreme alpha males. Those warmongers. For it’s apparently okay to be a warmonger as long as you are a woman.
Ivy League Alumni are either not Very Smart or they’re Intellectually Dishonest People
Another group of people liberals hate is corporate CEOs. A bunch of old rich white guys that sold their souls to make a buck. Just look at Occupy Wall Street. The attacks on Mitt Romney. On bank executives. As far as the Left is concerned these people are the scum of the earth. With these contemptible CEOs sitting on the right-hand side of Satan. Who care only about profits. Not people. The evil, heartless bastards they are. In a side by side comparison the Left would be hard pressed to say who was worse. Corporate CEOs. Or Nazis. Yet they rejoice whenever a woman shatters the glass ceiling to become one of these evil, heartless, contemptible, neo-Nazis that sit on the right-hand side of Satan. Because evil is apparently okay as long as there is a woman in charge.
And speaking of evil that’s another thing liberals don’t much care for. Religion. Christianity. For they see it as nothing but thousands of years of institutional oppression of women. And a bunch of hypocritical moralizing. Opposing abortion. Even birth control. As they frown on premarital sex. Something that just didn’t jive with the free love of the Sixties. Or the swinging Seventies. No. Liberals see Christianity as a persistent effort to turn the hands of time back. Back to a time when women were kept barefoot and pregnant. Living life as a cook, maid and whore. That living hell of wedded bliss. So liberals have no love for Christianity. Even forcing Catholics to provide birth control and the abortion pill to any women on their health insurance plans. Even though it’s against their conscience. Yes, they’re bullying Catholics. Rather ironic, really. Considering how liberals hate bullies. But they’re willing to embrace their bullying inner selves when it comes to Christianity. As they have nothing but contempt for the Church. Yet they’re all for the advancement of women in the Church hierarchy. From pastors. To bishops. For Christianity is everything horrible they say it is. Especially to women. While at the same time it’s a swell career for women. Apparently.
So we often see liberals arguing contradictory positions on the same issue. Which is pretty odd as many of them are brilliant Ivy League alumni. But normal for them. Based on their history. So Ivy League alumni are either not very smart. Or they’re intellectually dishonest people. Arguing not what’s right or wrong. But what is most politically expedient for them. Attacking traditions and institutions they don’t like from without. And from within. With but one goal. To destroy what they don’t like. So they can build something they do like. A new world according to them. Whether we like it or not.
Breast cancer rates are rising for older women. The question is why? What are our older women doing today that is causing these higher rates? Or is it something from their past. Like the effects of heavy smoking catching up to them in their later years? Health officials think it may just be their aging population causing this. As people who live longer have more time to have diseases that they didn’t when people were dying in their fifties and sixties. But breast cancer rates for these women are expected to quadruple. Which makes one believe there may be something else besides an aging population causing this to happen (see Breast cancer cases in older women set to quadruple by Denis Campbell posted 10/15/2012 on the guardian).
The number of older women with breast cancer will almost quadruple by 2040, according to new research in the British Journal of Cancer.
Currently 340,000 of the 570,000 women of all ages in the UK with the disease are 65 or older. That is set to increase to 1.2 million out of a projected 1.68 million total number of women with the disease by 2040.
That represents a rise in the proportion of all breast cancers among older women from 59% now to 73% then…
“The NHS needs to ensure that every older woman with breast cancer gets the best possible care,” added Devane. “Too many cancer doctors are making assumptions based on age, which often results in older women receiving inadequate care for their breast cancer,” he said.
Women who are 65 today were in their twenties between 1967 and 1977. A decade of great social change. Including, of course, the use of birth control and abortion. Giving us the sexual revolution. Marking a shift in when women started their families. Because of birth control and abortion women delayed starting their families. Could this play any factor in the rise of breast cancer rates? Some think so. While some vehemently reject this. There are studies showing a link. Studies that some say are flawed. Unfortunately, abortion is a very politicized issue. Unlike other health-related issues. For example, when one study showed that drinking coffee may cause cancer the media reported it widely and some people gave up their coffee. Then when another study showed that it didn’t people resumed their coffee drinking habits. But when it comes to a link between abortion and breast cancer politics come first. And the pro-life people seem to be the only ones talking about it. While the pro-choice people denounce those studies as being flawed.
But one thing that can’t be denied is that there is a rise in breast cancer rates that haven’t been explained yet by any other cause or factor. Whereas lung cancer rates have declined by a corresponding decline in smoking. While they have found no such corollary to explain the rise in breast cancer rates. Not smoking. Not diet. No food preservative or pharmaceutical side effect. At least, not yet. But because breast tissue changes after conception and abortion interrupts that change, or simple delays in pregnancy (without ever having an abortion) delays those changes in breast tissue, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support a link between abortion and breast cancer. And between delays in the change of breast tissue to produce milk and breast cancer (see Abortion ‘triples breast cancer risk’: Fourth study finds terminations linked to disease by Simon Caldwell posted 6/23/2010 on the Daily Mail).
An abortion can triple a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say.
A team of scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease.
While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion.
Other factors included the onset of the menopause and smoking.
The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer…
But Cancer Research UK questioned the accuracy of the figures and said women should not be unduly worried.
Dr Kat Arney, the charity’s science information manager, said: ‘This is a very small study of only 300 women, so there are likely to be statistical errors in a sample of this size…
Although the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has acknowledged the possibility of an abortion-breast cancer link, most medical professionals in Britain remain unconvinced…
Those who believe there is a link say breast cancer is caused by high levels of oestradiol, a hormone that stimulates breast growth during pregnancy.
Its effects are minimised in women who take pregnancy to full term but it remains at dangerous levels in those who have abortions.
There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year.
At the least women who have had an abortion, who used birth control to delay pregnancy or who used formula instead of breast feeding should increase their breast cancer screenings. Even if they politically object to the findings of these reports. If detected early enough survival rates are far greater. So just as people who smoke should start having stress tests earlier to detect heart disease so should women who may be at higher risk of breast cancer have earlier and more frequent screenings than women who did not have an abortion, did not delay their pregnancies or breast fed their babies.
It would appear that President Obama doesn’t like Catholics. Catholics don’t believe in abortion or birth control. But Obamacare will force Catholic hospitals, universities and charities to provide them. Well, at least the birth control and the morning after pill. For now. They’ll be time to include regular abortions later (see Catholic group seeks change in birth control policy by David Morgan posted 6/15/2012 on Reuters).
The Obama administration’s decision in January to require employers including religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and charities to provide employees with access to coverage for contraceptives without copays or deductibles has ballooned into a major battle in an election year.
The Catholic Church considers artificial contraception to be a sin and the administration’s demands on contraceptives have been decried as a violation of religious freedom…
The administration policy, authorized under President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law, covers all contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration including the so-called morning after pill, which women can take after sex to avoid becoming pregnant.
The Obama administration is going ‘all China’ when it comes to family planning. Provide as much access to birth control and abortion as possible to keep people from getting the disease they call pregnancy. Yet at the same time they want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Interesting as these issues are related. How? One reduces the amount of taxpayers. The other increases the amount of taxpayers.
The use of birth control and abortion took off during the Sixties and the Seventies. Which created a baby bust following the baby boom. There are now fewer people entering the workforce than there are people leaving the workforce. So you have a growing retired population supported by a shrinking working population. You add these numbers up and it equals one thing if you’re a tax and spend liberal. You need amnesty for illegal aliens to make up for the taxpayers that were never born. Or austerity. And as austerity never goes over well with the people they’ll go with amnesty. Because they don’t want what’s happening in Greece happening here.