Posted on 01/19/2018 5:30:04 AM PST by Kaslin
Since 1973, liberal feminists have celebrated the "right to choose abortion" without admitting the horror -- over 60 million lives have violently and prematurely ended since the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade. The liberals who champion abortion are far more comfortable panicking that abortion "rights" are always in danger, especially when Republicans control Washington.
So it's not surprising that a hot trend among novelists is feminist themes, like imagining the terror of abortions banned. Washington Post book critic Ron Charles loves a new book called "Red Clocks" by Leni Zumas. She imagines an America in which anyone who tries to get an abortion is jailed. In this book, the conservatives even build a forbidding Pink Wall along the northern border of the U.S. to keep desperate women and girls from going to Canada to exercise their lethal "right to choose."
Charles wrote: "'Red Clocks' might sound like a dystopian novel, but plenty of conservative politicians are plotting to make it a work of nonfiction. ... The story is set in a small Oregon town in a future that Mike Pence can almost see if he stands on his pew."
It would have been helpful for him to name a single conservative politician who supports that scenario, which is not just unrealistic but incoherently so.
The author says her most frightening details were drawn from "actual proposals" by men who are currently in charge of the government. Charles dramatically added that in the book, "Bridles designed for women's bodies are already hanging in legislators' barns, just waiting for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to die."
Ditto the author: Produce a single name.
As if that didn't sound wacky enough, Charles also filmed a video in which he imposed his own face on the Statue of Liberty and recited an altered Emma Lazarus poem to match what he thinks is Vice President Mike Pence's vibe: "Give me your rich, your white,/ your huddled spermatazoa yearning to break free!"
Liberal legs are getting thrills from this exciting new line of feminist literature, and the Post has seemingly applauded every example. A year ago, Charles celebrated the latest novel by Joyce Carol Oates, "A Book of American Martyrs." The central drama involves a conservative Christian shooting an abortion doctor to death.
It's apparently inspired by the 1994 shooting of Florida abortion doctor John Britton, but the Post critic called it "a powerful reminder that fiction can be as timely as this morning's tweets but infinitely more illuminating." It's been more than eight years since the last abortion doctor was murdered (abortionist George Tiller), so it's not as "timely" as this morning.
In October, Charles championed a new novel called "The Power" by English author Naomi Alderman, which seeks to enrapture feminists by imagining that teenage girls become empowered with the ability to electrocute men with their hands. Charles especially liked that this liberating feminine "power" forced patriarchal Christians to reimagine the Gospels, and set aside the Father and the Son, and honor the "supremacy of the Mother." Charles gushed that this book was an instant anti-sexist classic that deconstructs the "internal ribs of power that we have tolerated, honored and romanticized for centuries." He admitted that it might be "a fool's errand" to assert that Alderman will be honored for all time, but "in this case," he's "eager to be that fool."
At the very least, it's an instant liberal classic -- honored as a Best Book of 2017 not just by the Post but by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Entertainment Weekly, NPR and ... former President Barack Obama. Hollywood cannot be far behind.
They have to re-double the assaults on the pro-life movement because even the most vile supporter of infanticide can see the dearth of American children today - and many are re-considering the whole “baby” thing. Feminists are creating the world of horrors for women that only existed in their imagination; what treatment do they expect from macho braceros or fanatical Muslims?
A major portion of the pro-abortion narrative is that a woman’s natural desire upon finding out she is pregnant is to kill the child. There is, of course, no natural urge to kill one’s own children—if this were a feature of human instinct, the human species would have died off millennia ago.
Of course, these abortion advocates *never* mention that responsible women who use abstinence and birth control rarely get pregnant unless they want to. They want to maintain the fiction that women have no control over their bodies. Irresponsible women are far more profitable to the abortion industry. Furthermore, abortion advocates who are worked into a frenzy over population growth find an extra advantage in pushing women to use abortion rather than birth control: the physical and psychological damages of abortion reduce the chance that they will have full term living babies.
“...just waiting for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to die.”
Well, we ALL want that! *SMIRK*
Isn’t is amazing how ‘concerned’ the Enemy Media is with President Trump’s health, though it’s just FINE for Ruthie to snooze through every day while still on The Taxpayer’s Dime?
A few more SCOTUS appointments by DJT just might save our Republic for good and all...and that TERRIFIES the Socialists!
And don’t even get me started on, ‘abortion rights.’ Grrrr!
(I’m a little ‘growly’ but feeling quite ‘bitey’ today!)
“Irresponsible women are far more profitable to the abortion industry.”
And THAT is the crux of it! Always follow the money. Always.
Just another symptom of the anger that has rendered half of the country insane. To the left, fiction is a representation of how they imagine the world to be, or how they want it to be. They have a hard time distinguishing fiction and reality.
They should all be in a padded cell where they can’t hurt themselves or each other.
Precisely. These childless harpies are so far gone, divorced from their essential womanhood, that they can’t help but indulge in fantasy. Fantasy that they will be FORCED to reproduce. There are a million screaming ids out there.
Here’s an idea: how about not boinking someone you wouldn’t have a baby with.
Absolutely. I figured out early in my dating career that he choice comes when you choose to sleep with someone who can impregnate you.
My girlfriend and I (soon to be fiancée, and then later wife) had a situation with an unplanned pregnancy. She and I took the time to talk about it. She asked me if she should end the pregnancy. We talked about the costs, the legal rights, the ethical items and then in the end, my personal feelings. It is the law of the land, yes, but personally, I would not like for her to do that, and I feel it would be both harmful to us, but harmful to her, and that the amount of suicides and fatal injuries was still way too high for us to risk that. If something happened and we decided we couldn’t keep the baby, we could put the baby up for adoption.
Fast forward about 8 months. Baby was born after 37 minutes of labor. Beautiful little girl named Willow who has the most sparkling personality and inquisitive eyes ever. When the doctor placed her on my girlfriend’s chest, she started sobbing and told her “I am so sorry I ever thought about aborting you. I will NEVER let anything happen to you.” I know that’s not every woman’s response, but I knew that she was not saying that just because she was emotional, but she really meant it. She’s said similar things a few more times since then.
She’s in the other room, sleeping, and so is little Willow, who is now 1 year and 2 months and says 4 words on her own. She is so precious and I wouldn’t give her, or her mother up for anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.