Free Birth Control and Abortion on Demand creates a lot of Harm for Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2014

Week in Review

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Women in Combat Zones have been issued Rape Whistles to Protect themselves from their Fellow Soldiers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Watch a realistic war movie.  Like PlatoonSaving Private Ryan.  Or Band of Brothers.  And study the scenes where the combat is so close that it devolves into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where brute strength and dirty fighting kills someone.  Where men are reduced to animals in the wild.  Snorting and grunting and gasping for life.  Until someone can stab another to death.  Snap a neck.  Or choke someone to death.  For when the enemy gets this close you can’t use your rifle.  All you have is your physical strength.  And whoever is stronger typically wins these horrific hand-to-hand encounters.  This is combat at its worse.  Where the killing is close.  You hear the dying breath of the enemy.  And look them in the eyes as they die.

Now there is a drive to put women in combat.  Up to now they have only served in support roles that engaged in periodic combat situations.  Serving valiantly.  And paying a heavy price in the wounds they receive.  But they end their day in a rear area.  In a base with beds to sleep in.  Hot chow.  And showers.  They haven’t ‘rucked up’ and gone on extended patrols with the infantry or Special Forces.  But some say it is now time that women do (see ‘No girls allowed’: Iraq war vet Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on opening combat missions to women by Rick Klein, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps posted 7/3/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Ask Rep. Tulsi Gabbard why she supports the military’s new policy to allow women to serve in combat roles, and the Iraq war veteran speaks from experience.

“I can tell you during my deployment, there were missions that I– volunteered for and was not allowed to go on, simply because I’m a woman,” Gabbard, D-Hawaii, tells Top Line. “They said, ‘Sorry, no. No girls allowed…’”

Gabbard also brings a first-hand perspective to the issue of sexual assault in the military, saying she “heard and saw incidents” of sexual assault within her military camp when she was in Iraq.

“We got issued rape whistles so that as we walk out of our tent or walk out of our hooch, we’ve got our body armor, we’ve got our helmet, our weapon, and we’ve got our rape whistle,” Gabbard recalls. “It was an eye-opening experience to have to consider that fact when we’re serving overseas in Iraq and…this is a risk or a danger that exists.”

Women have different physical standards in training.  To help them complete training.  Because they don’t have the same strength of men.  And can’t do what men do.  There are some who can but by and large if they didn’t have these different standards we wouldn’t have as many women in the military today.  Or have to issue rape whistles.  For if a women met the same physical standards as a man she wouldn’t need that rape whistle.  For she would be able to defend herself from a would be rapist.  Just as she would be able to defend herself if the enemy penetrated their defensive line and the combat devolved into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where blowing a rape whistle wouldn’t cause the enemy to stop trying to kill her.

Sure, some will say, a woman may be able to protect herself if it was one on one.  But what if she was being gang-raped?  Then she would still need that rape whistle.  If it was that bad in the military then we shouldn’t have women there in the first place.  For it’s an obvious distraction to the mission if we have to focus so much on sexual assault in these rear areas of deployed troops.  And what would happen once these troops left these rear areas and entered combat?  There were a lot of unpopular second lieutenants who were ‘accidentally’ shot by their own troops in Vietnam.  For putting men on report.  Or just being incompetent in leading men into battle.  When the bullets started flying accidents happened.  Grenades get tossed around and accidentally end up in the wrong foxhole.  And if they happen to have an enemy rifle, why, they could say the lieutenant fell gloriously in battle under enemy fire.  Any gang of soldiers who would try to gang-rape a soldier in their unit would have no second thoughts about making their problem go away in the field.  You can’t put them all in the brig.  If you did you wouldn’t have enough to send into the field.  So soldiers will enter the field with some possible bad blood.  And scores to settle.

Is it this bad in the military?  Probably not.  Can it be?  Perhaps.  For you’re always going to have trouble when mixing men and women together.  Officers may be gentlemen.  But soldiers are cold-blooded killers in the field.  Who revert to their animalistic past.  Where it’s kill or be killed.  Thinking that we can flip a switch on them to change them from cold-blooded killers to gentlemen is asking a lot of them.  And distracts from the mission.  For the few women who can meet the men’s physical standards is it worth it to play with these social experiments on the best military in the world?  Will these women make the best military better?  Will they not change it?  Or will they degrade it?  None of these three options make a compelling case to tamper with the best military in the world.  So why do it?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

With Women in the Military Men have to stop Treating Women as the Sexual Objects they thought they Were

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

UK Study finds that Rape and Sexual Assault victimize One in Ten Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 17th, 2012

Week in Review

Women have lost a lot since the hippy movement of the Sixties that turned them into sex objects for men to enjoy instead of becoming wives and mothers.  For it was a new world out there.  And women didn’t need to subject themselves to the horrors of wedded bliss.  For the women’s movement liberated them.  They could be whatever they wanted.  Do whatever they wanted.  And have sex whenever and with whoever they wanted.  Thanks to birth control.  And then abortion.  It was a time of empowerment.  And this empowerment led to a boom in pornography, strip clubs and prostitution.  And worse (see Rape Survey Shock: One In 10 Are Victims posted 3/12/2012 on Sky News).

As many as one in 10 women in the UK claim to have been raped, according to new research by parenting website Mumsnet.

The survey of 1,609 women found a tenth of those who responded had been raped and a third had been sexually assaulted.

More than four in five of the victims did not report their perpetrators to the police because of concerns over low conviction rates, embarrassment and shame…

Allison Saunders, chief crown prosecutor for CPS London, said: “I support the message of the We Believe You campaign, its aim to raise awareness of the extent of these crimes, and to challenge preconceptions.

“As a society we need to be aware of the myths and stereotypes that members of the public who become jury members may hold and which have the potential to influence court outcomes and ultimately lives.

In other words, women are NOT asking for it.  The problem is that the very people (liberals, feminists, etc.) who claim to support and defend women have objectified them.  Which is the unfortunate corollary to women exploring their sexuality and using birth control and abortion to empower themselves.  Because the underlying message is that women are NOT for marrying and raising a family with.  They’re for sex.  Sex without consequences.  Which can’t do anything but objectify women.  And when some knuckle-dragging Neanderthal can’t join in on some of that consequence-free sex when everyone else appears to be enjoying it their twisted little minds interpret that as a personal insult. 

Rape is not about sex.  It’s about power.  Control over women.  A violent response to a lifetime of rejection.  Or not being ‘good enough’ for a night of casual, meaningless sex.  These men blame women for their deficiencies.  Whatever it is that is wrong with them that prevents them from participating in the world of casual sex.  Because if everyone else is doing it and they’re not then something is wrong.  Either with themselves.  Which they refuse to accept.  So that leaves women.

The prevailing attitude about sex today is sending two different messages.  One that encourages women to liberate themselves from the horrors of wedded bliss and to go out and live life to its fullest.  And one that tells too many men that women are some THING just to have fun with.  Not a PERSON to honor, cherish, respect, etc.  And that is why our wives, sisters and daughters are suffering today from some of the most unspeakable of crimes. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New Airport Security is a Pervert’s Paradise

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2010

Poorly Paid Perverts Enjoyed the ‘Perks’ of the Job

You ever work as security guard?  I have.  There are many types that work as guards.  College students (like me) using the time to study.  Retirees making some extra scratch for a hobby (I once worked with an old fisherman that spent his whole shift tying flies).  Ex-military who are usually armed (who do more of the serious/hardcore security).  Wannabe cops (who are for the most part good guards and advance in the company).  The unskilled.  The unemployable.  And perverts.

The unskilled and unemployable get some of the worst assignments.  Poorly paid, they sit in a booth or in their car in some of the worst neighborhoods.  They’re sort of like untrained militia.  Those who hire them hope for just one phone call to the cops before they break and run.

Perverts like to work where they can watch the pretty young ladies on a security camera system.  Or peek at them in the bathroom through a strategically placed hole in a ceiling tile.  Or use their keys to enter their offices where they can snoop through their desks during the night shift.  Or sit at a low desk with the sign-in log so they could look down their blouses when the ladies bend down to sign in.  And, of course, they always stash some porn in the stack of magazines in the bottom desk drawer. 

At First it was Just Some Naked Feet, a Flash of Thigh and a Little Butt Crack

Of course, things are different today.  A lot of women are guards now.  Pornographic magazines are a big no-no.  There are more security cameras making it harder to snoop.  And leering at women is right out.  It’s hard to be naughty these days.  So what is a pervert to do?  Why, work at the TSA.

Before 9/11, airport security guards were low-paid, unskilled, rent-a-cops.  They stood at the walk-through metal detectors.  Waved a wand over you if you beeped.  And on occasion rifled through a lady’s underwear packed in her suitcase.  But that all changed after 9/11.

Well, sort of.  The people didn’t change.  They just got snappy new uniforms and a fatter paycheck.  And did pretty much the same thing.  Stood at the walk-through metal detectors.  And waved their magic wands.  But if you had a foot fetish, things were looking up.  Especially if you liked to watch lovely ladies in short skirts and low-rise jeans contort, squat and bend over to put their shoes back on.  But things were going to get even better for the perverts.

Working in a Pervert’s Paradise

Now seeing naked pictures are part of the job.  But not to worry, concerned traveler.  Only TSA personnel will see those pictures (see TSA Chief Defends New Patdown Procedure by Scott Mayerowitz posted 11/16/2010 by ABC News).

The government has reassured the flying public time and time again that any naked images of them at airport checkpoints would be destroyed immediately.

And if you suffer from modesty, or fear radiation, you can opt out of the full body scans that produce these naked pictures. 

Passengers worried that their nude photos may end up on the Internet (or concerned about the radiation from the scanners) can opt to bypass the machines. But those travelers then must undergo a more-intrusive search, including the new patdown procedure in which a same-gender TSA agent touches the inside of passengers’ inner thighs and women’s breasts.

Can a pervert still enjoy a same sex pat-down?  Well, think about it.  Are perverts ladies men?  Or do attractive women typically reject these guys?  And, if so, what would these rejected guys really enjoy?  Why, watching a fellow TSA agent violate and humiliate an attractive woman with a public breast rub and public crotch grope, of course.

That new patdown alone has generated controversy as passengers, and even some pilots, have equated it with sexual assault. Pilot unions started to advise their members to have the patdown done in private.

So this is the tradeoff.  Sexual assault for everyone that flies.  A veritable pervert’s paradise.  To prevent another terrorist attack.  Which is less likely to happen than getting struck by lightning.  Something’s not right here.  But the BIG question is this; are we any safer?

The Israelis Profiled and Studied Behavior – They didn’t Peek through Women’s Clothes

It’s hard to make the case that we are.  The nude imaging and rough pat downs wouldn’t have found the underwear bomb last Christmas in Detroit.  What stopped that?  Alert passengers who saw a person of apparent Middle-East descent acting peculiarly.  You see, there is no such thing as political correctness on a plane with a credible threat.

So what’s the answer?  Well, terrorist hate us because we support Israel.  And there’s only one group of people they hate more than Americans.  Israelis.  And they’re constantly trying to kill them.  Yet their planes are pretty safe.  Apparently, the Israelis are doing something right.  And Security experts say we should be doing what the Israelis are doing (see Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening by Byron York posted 11/15/2010 on the Washington Examiner).

For example, many security experts have urged TSA to adopt techniques, used with great success by the Israeli airline El Al, in which passengers are observed, profiled, and most importantly, questioned before boarding planes. So TSA created a program known as SPOT — Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques. It began hiring what it called behavior detection officers, who would be trained to notice passengers who acted suspiciously. TSA now employs about 3,000 behavior detection officers, stationed at about 160 airports across the country.

Good.  We’re following the Israeli lead.  So how is that working?

“It’s not an Israeli model, it’s a TSA, screwed-up model,” says [John] Mica [the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure].  “It should actually be the person who’s looking at the ticket and talking to the individual. Instead, they’ve hired people to stand around and observe, which is a bastardization of what should be done.”

Leave it to government to take a good thing and screw it up.  And how bad is the TSA version of the Israeli method?

In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Mica noted that the GAO “discovered that since the program’s inception, at least 17 known terrorists … have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports.” One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York’s JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure.

The problem with the TSA is the TSA.  Granted, the SPOT detection officers were probably better trained than the typical TSA rent-a-cop, but they’re still part of the same bureaucracy.  They may train but they have little hands-on experience.  There just aren’t that many terrorists trying to get on our airplanes with detectable bombs.  And the few that do are able to slip through.  Because our TSA has so little hands-on experience.

People like to point to the military as a proof that government can do something well.  But who is really training those soldiers?  Combat veterans.  Who have hands-on experience fighting bad guys.  That’s what we need.  Professionals with experience.  Not TSA rent-a-cops.  We need to get serious with security.  Like the Israelis have.

Just Because President Obama’s Wife and Daughters aren’t Sexually Assaulted when They Fly Doesn’t Mean that Yours Shouldn’t

The problem with terrorism is that you have to worry about what doesn’t happen.  It’s not the successful attacks that count.  It’s the fear of what may happen.  This terror is so great that it has made us sexually assault our women and children whenever they fly.  But based on the experts, this sexual assault isn’t making us any safer.  So why do it?  Well, part of the reason is that those making us go through it don’t have to go through it themselves (see Since the TSA molested my family, why doesn’t Obama volunteer to subject his family to the same security procedures? by Mark Hemingway posted 11/16/2010 on the Washington Examiner).

The President and his family — preferably with DHS Secretary Janet “The system worked” Napolitano — should show up at Dulles or Reagan airport on a weekday with a camera crew in tow, as airport pat downs are typically done in full view of hundreds of travelers. All of America will to see the TSA handling the President’s crown jewels. Then a rubber-gloved federal agent will run his hands all over his wife and daughter’s privates while he watches. Then I want him to turn to the camera and tell all of America that this is no big deal and we should all be good citizens and comply with the necessary security procedures.

Can you see the TSA publicly embarrassing President Obama?  Or see him watching the TSA grope his wife and children?  Of course not.  The ruling elite will always exempt themselves from such barbaric treatment.  It’s okay for us.  But not for the royal family.    

When George W. Bush was tapping phone calls of suspected foreign terrorists, the liberal left went ballistic and called for his impeachment.  Ditto for the water boarding of all those three terrorists.  That was just beyond the pale.  But taking nude images or feeling up every man, woman and child who flies is okay.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,