The Reality Blog

It would appear that I will have to tackle a few of those "don't want to know about it" issues and guess whose coming along ?
As a Father of Five, I do have major issues with the feminist version of describing and justifying abortions as an obvious and humane method of birth control. They have in the past demonstrated that not only is the "abortion" topic sacrosanct to the feminist cause as far as they are concerned, remember "Roe and Wade". Nothing as far as they are concerned will change that attitude..

No decision of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century has been as controversial as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy.  Attorneys for Roe had suggested several constitutional provisions might be violated by the Texas law prohibiting abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. 

The argument was ofcourse organised and financed by feminists as we have found to be the case. Feminists argue that the reason for their promotion of the abortion argument was to ensure that in case of rape, or whenever any questions were raised about the health of the mother regarding childbirth. The choice should be, whether or not to abort the "foetus" at will. Both those situations hardly ever occur or are the reasons for the abortion to take place. Feminists managed to ensure that any unborn child should not be regarded as being a human being whilst in the womb, to be considered nothing more than excess tissue of unknown shape and form, in order for them to justify it's removal and destruction. As usual, the consensus was reached and almost every female goose stepped their way into accepting this monstrous argument without even bothering to check the facts. If some the girls agreed than that was all that was required for them to agree as well. Democracy female style, via emotive consensus, was something they could all happily live with..

What amazes me is that little perfectly formed hand at just 21 weeks..

Brief Background:In 1973, the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade ruled that women have the right to an abortion during the first 6 months (2 trimesters) of pregnancy, thereby legalizing abortion.It's not as if something or someone was being affected, not a real person anyway..

 The picture is that of a 21-week-old Unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is  being operated on by surgeon named Joseph Bruner.
The baby was diagnosed with spinal bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb.
Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta
She knew of Dr Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt Univ. Med. Ctr. in Nashville , he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.
During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus viaC-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger.
Dr Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity The editors titled the picture, 'Hand of Hope.' The text explaining the picture begins, 'The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life.'
Little Samuel's mother said they 'wept for days' when they saw the picture. She said, 'The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person. ‘Samuel was born in perfect health, the operation 100 percent successful.

Finding the Alternative to "NO"..

One does not have to wonder hard what these children at the OWS (Occupy everything) were overdosed on. Their standard response to anything contained the standard feminist bullshit that we have come to expect from those dysfunctional children. What amazes me about all of this is that we get to witness first hand what happens to even a minuscule group of morons who adopt the feminist doctrine. It just does not work, it fails completely and comprehensively. Not only is that mentality, hypocritical and dysfunctional, it also refuses to deal with issues that requires a firm hand and actually (gasp) some leadership, community control relegated to committees is about as affective as saying no to a child who has already knocked off the biscuits. These unconscionable wimps would spend more time assessing the many reason why they should not interfere than they it would actually take in saying the one single word that does not offers any alternative, the big, bad and banned "NO", it's just not part of their vocabulary..

One example comes to mind, when a staff member spent ten minutes justifying her reason for coming to work in a top that one would wear for a night out and wearing open toe sandals, was met with a resounding "NO' and sent home to change. That one single word works wonders..

It's all a joke, when one protesting group at one location  has 88 committees to try and deal with every possible real and imaginary situations. Committees take minutes and waste hours and always compromise to the most offended..

Like I said originally, it's a comedy, a distraction and a great example on what not to do..

Free Speech, Hypocrisy and Rights to Life itself.

I am amazed about this type of information, commonly available and yet no one seems to know about it or it is never made available. I have already posted on how sperm aids and assists females psychobiology and ofcourse induces and encourages normality., Which should explain why lesbians are such violent and abusive creatures as they do not benefit from that huge dose of those sanity levelling substances and associated conditions that women appear to suffer from when not infused..

In fact, semen has a very complicated chemical profile, containing over 50 different compounds (including hormones, neurotransmitters, endorphins and immunosupressants) each with a special function and occurring in different concentrations within the seminal plasma. Perhaps the most striking of these compounds is the bundle of mood-enhancing chemicals in semen. There is good in this goo. Such anxiolytic chemicals include, but are by no means limited to, cortisol (known to increase affection), estrone (which elevates mood), prolactin (a natural antidepressant), oxytocin (also elevates mood), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (another antidepressant), melatonin (a sleep-inducing agent) and even serotonin (perhaps the most well-known antidepressant neurotransmitter).

And ofcourse we cannot forget how nasty those lesbians behave without that infusion, which can at least be demonstrated by some fact and figures. Bearing in mind that there are copious members of the feminist hegemony who are precisely that. As a matter of fact, have a look on the right hand side bar and you will see a video where a feminist brags about feminism giving the opportunity to explore your "lesbianism"..

I think all we have to do is put them on one island and they will take care of that problem in no time at all..

Professor Lori B. Gishick, a professor of sociology and women's studies at Warren Wilson College in North Carolina, has worked for about 10 years in battered women's organizations and has run a support group specifically for abused lesbians. The "myth that women are not violent," is persistent and contributes to a denial of woman-to-woman sexual violence, not only among the general population but also among lesbians, says Girhick. " We want to believe that our relationships are safe, that we have equality, and that we have ideal communities. But it's not true." The estimated incidence of domestic abuse in gay and lesbian relationships is one out of three. Girshick says a large number of her respondents, as children and adults, had also been sexually abused , and that the memories of these previous traumas often complicated their reaction to being assaulted by women.

For a comprehensive explanation on how abusive and violent lesbians are just follow this link..

Anyway, back to this interesting article and study..
Some additional information if you are that way inclined.. and here as well..

I wanna have a baby. Too young,too stupid..

This is quite amazing......
It is a fact that in a normal man woman union, resulting in a fetus, that the blood which flows in the yet to be born baby, is derived only from the male sperm and not from the mother’s seed. 

An unfertilized ovum can never develop blood by itself, because it simply doesn’t contain the essential elements for this process. 

Only after the male’s sperm enters the ovum can blood be produced. Remember, “The life of the flesh is in the blood,” therefore, an ovum is not life until the addition of the male element. 

The male sperm is the source of blood, the seat of life. 

Furthermore, not one drop of blood passes from the mother to the child while the child is developing in the mother’s womb. 

The placenta and the umbilical cord are so constructed so as to filter out the mother’s blood and yet allow into the child soluble nutritive elements such as proteins, fats, carbohydrates, salts, minerals and antibodies and permit the elimination of waste from the child. 

The nutrients and waste pass through membranes designed to separate the circulations of the baby’s and mother’s blood. 

Source: Howell’s Textbook of Physiology. Williams’ Practice of Obstetrics. Zabriskie’s Nurse’s Handbook of Obstetrics.

This sure as hell makes the claim about the  rights of the Father in the abortion argument, where future Fathers cannot have a say in it's destruction or survival, paternal "ownability" of the DNA should be able to be demonstrated by a simple blood test and demonstrate precisely whose blood runs through it's tiny veins..

Mike addresses the feminist penchant for murdering the unborn as just being an event like choosing an item on the menu or it just being some lifestyle choice without granting the slightest consideration to the fact that they are promoting a heinous and sadistic operation that not only destroys a life but can and does totally destroy the female who undertakes that action..Here..Here and Here..

significant abortion risks:

• Breast cancer
: This is considered as major risk in abortion. About 50% of women are affected by this type of cancer after abortion.

• Premature delivery:
 When you go through one or more induced abortion surgeries, there is a significantly increased risk of premature delivery in future. This kind of abortion risk is mainly associated with several complications like cerebral palsy, prematurity in brain, eye problems and several bowel diseases.

• Infertility:
 This is a very rare case in the risks of abortion, where a woman might not get pregnancy in future.

• Pelvic inflammatory diseases:
 This can be a life threatening risk for you after abortion, which can lead to infertility and ectopic pregnancy. About 5% of women suffer with pelvic inflammatory diseases.

Also this particular nasty side affect that is ignored as well..

Causes of Post-Abortion-Syndrome
The causes for this stress disorder are really quite simple. The thing that has made the very existence of Post-Abortion-Syndrome debatable is the fact that it often does not surface until many years after the abortion. It is very common for a woman to say that she is fine about the whole thing, but later in live she finds herself engulfed in feelings of guilt, confusion, and exploitation. The reason for the surfacing anxiety is partly a mystery, but is often associated with the birth of a wanted child, or during unrelated counseling. (Gentles 1990, 85-86) The very interesting phenomenon about this dis-order is that the synptoms seem repressible, at least for a time. Clinical research has shown that when women are in trusting sharing relationships they report deep seated feelings of guilt, anxiety, depression, loss, anger, and exploitation over their abortion experience. The causes for the dis-order surfacing seems to be in many ways, time itself. (Allied Action Inc. 1996, 1).

Mike Adams  
Poverty, Rape and Abortion

Author’s Note: Every summer at Summit Ministries (seewww.Summit.org) I give a speech meant to equip young pro-life students with proper rebuttals to pro-abortion choice arguments. I have been asked to reprint the speech in my column (in condensed form). I am doing so in two parts. The first part can be accessed by clicking on this link. I hope you find this – the second of two installments – both beneficial and informative.Whenever I find myself in an extended argument about abortion I find that there are about six arguments I can expect to encounter before the argument has come to term, so to speak. But, fortunately, the six arguments all suffer from one fatal flaw, which makes them somewhat easy to rebut as long as the proponent of life stays focused on the central moral question of the abortion debate, which is “Are the unborn human?” I’ve dealt with four of the six arguments in the first installment of this series. I deal with arguments five and six below.
Argument #5: “It is wrong for a woman to be forced to give birth to a baby she cannot afford.”This argument is also remarkably calloused – so much so that it is difficult to understand how those who make it could describe themselves as “liberal.” Do we really need to start reassigning Jonathan Swift’sModest Proposal to understand how profoundly sick and distasteful this argument really is? Swift wrote (satirically, of course) a proposal that suggested people eat their babies in order to relieve hunger and poverty. Pro-abortion choice arguments often sound chillingly similar.
For those who have never read Swift, I like to use a more contemporary example. In the 80s, a punk rock band calling themselves “The Dead Kennedys” wrote a song called “Kill the Poor” in which they mockingly suggested that we kill poor people as a means of eliminating poverty. That would certainly eliminate poverty. But is that really an acceptable solution? Of course, it isn’t. That was their point.
Make sure to confront abortion choice advocates with the question of whether it is permissible to kill to eliminate poverty. When you do, they will say something like this: “No, I would never advocate killing the poor. I would advocate abortion to prevent them from becoming poor people in the first place.” They are trapped once again in the untenable position of denying the personhood of the unborn. (Please review argument #1 from the first installment in this series).
2. “Back alley abortions will increase if abortion is illegal.” This argument simply assumes, like the first, that the unborn are not persons. If they were not then the abortion choice advocate would be in the awkward position of arguing that someone has a right to commit murder in a safe and sterile environment. This hardly survives the straight-face test. But if, for some reason, your opponent can’t see its absurdity tell him the following: I’m planning to rob the Wells Fargo Bank across the street but there is fungus all over the sidewalk. I’m afraid I might slip and fall during my escape. Could you call them and tell them to power-wash the sidewalk some time before I commit the robbery? And hurry up. I need the cash!
They may try to lie at this point and say that when abortion was illegal 10,000 women died per year using coat-hangers on themselves in back alleys. But those numbers are both false and irrelevant. Within a few years after abortion rights were constitutionalized the number of annual abortions went up at least six fold – and that is a very conservative estimate. That means over a million more babies were killed per year within just a few years after Roe v. Wade (compared with pre-Roe numbers). The fact that they were killed in a sterile, well-lighted environment did not make them any less dead. Please review argument #1.
3. “It is wrong to force a woman to bring an unwanted baby into the world.” Put simply, there is no such thing as an “unwanted baby.” If a baby is unwanted by its mother there is always, and I mean always, someone else who would want to adopt the baby. People cannot easily adopt in the country because so many children are unnecessarily aborted. But there is something even more sick and twisted about the “unwanted baby” excuse; namely that it insinuates that abortion prevents child abuse. But we have already established that abortion is child abuse. Please review argument #1 before reading further.
The very idea that we would murder children to prevent child abuse, which usually takes the form of simple battery, elevates intellectual laziness to a Zen art. It is the intellectual equivalent of promoting arson in order to prevent burglary. It is true that burglary will go down when we burn down everyone’s house but by now you get the point. And hopefully the pro-abortion choice advocate gets the point, too.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that abortion has not been an effective means of stopping child abuse (even if we exclude abortions). In 1973, there were 167,000 reported instances of child abuse. By 1982, reported instances of child abuse rose to 929,000. That is an increase of over 500 percent in less than a decade. When will so-called liberals take responsibility for this unmitigated disaster?
4. “It is wrong for a woman to be forced to bring a handicapped baby into the world.” It is frequently suggested that abortion is morally permissible when doctors discover, prior to birth, that a baby suffers from certain physical handicaps – such as Down’s syndrome or cerebral palsy. My response usually goes something like this:
“I agree that there are far too many handicapped people in the world. Every summer I take busloads of people who are wheelchair-bound on a trip to the Grand Canyon. We enjoy the view for a few minutes before I roll them off the edge of the Canyon. They are usually dead long before they hit the bottom. That is a good thing for them and for society as a whole. It is better to be dead than to be handicapped. Their lives are not worth living whether they realize it or not”
This provokes a strong reaction – as it should. After all, I am accusing the abortion choice advocate of gross insensitivity. That is usually when they argue that they are not killing a handicapped person but rather preventing a handicapped person from ever being born. Please review argument #1. Your opponent is trapped once again.